宗喀巴_三主要道英文版及解释-第16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！


　on　the　five　aggregates　…　so　grasping　onto　it　as　something　other　than　that　is　the　first　step；　the　second　one　is　a　sense　of　possessiveness　on　top　of　this　'I'；　then　with　this　idea　of　true　possessiveness　with　regard　the　object　we　encounter；　a　sense　of　true　pleasure　or　true　disfort　arising　from　the　side　of　those　objects；　and　then　our　mind　of　attachment　and　then　aversion　directed　towards　those　objects；　and　then　in　dependence　upon　that；　the　arising　of　the　destructive　emotions　of　attachment　and　aversion；　and　then　in　dependence　upon　that；　the　generation　of　karma；　and　then　in　dependence　upon　that；　the　whole　of　the　cycle　of　existence。

So　Chandrakirti　goes　on　to　mention　that　seeing　helpless　sentient　beings　in　such　a　way　one　should　strive　to　generate　passion　and　so　forth。　If　we　were　to　give　a　great　or　a　long　explanation　of　this　process　of　the　arising　of　the　cycle　of　existence；　we　would　give　an　explanation　of　the　twelve　links　of　dependent　origination；　but　as　we　don't　have　time　for　that；　this　is　a　very　abbreviated　way　of　how　sentient　beings　first　grasp　onto　an　'I'　and　then　through　that　the　whole　cycle　of　existence　es　into　being。

So　then　there　is　no　phenomena　for　which　dependent　arising　is　not　its　actual　mode　of　existence；　there　is　no　phenomena　which　does　not　arise　in　dependence　upon　other　factors；　be　it　causes　and　conditions　or　nominal　designations。　For　example；　Rinpoche　was　showing　his　glasses　case　and　was　saying　'is　this　long　or　is　it　short？'　If　you　hold　it　up　to　the　microphone　you　can　say　it's　short　in　dependence　upon　the　length　of　the　microphone；　whereas　if　you　pare　it　with　Rinpoche's　finger　then；　it's　long　in　parison　with　Rinpoche's　finger。　So　'short'　and　'long'　…　'short'　depends　upon　'long'　and　vice　versa；　there　is　no　object　about　which　we　can　say　'this　is　long　and　there　is　nothing　which　is　longer　than　this；　this　is　the　perfect　long'；　or　'this　is　the　perfect　short；　there　is　nothing　shorter　than　that　particular　object'。　For　example　with　a　table；　can　we　say　that　the　table　in　front　of　Rinpoche　is　high　or　is　it　short？　In　dependence　upon　the　floor　it's　something　quite　high；　but　pared　with　the　shelves　and　the　tables　behind；　it　is　shorter。　So　we　cannot　say　of　an　object　that　this　is　the　perfect　high　or　the　perfect　short。

Imputation　from　the　side　of　another

This　reasoning　can　also　be　applied　to　all　other　individuals；　for　example；　we　speak　a　lot　about　those　whose　are　our　friends；　and　those　who　are　our　enemies；　but　there　is　no　naturally　existing　or　autonomously　existing　'enemy'。　If　we　look　in　world　history；　we　find　two　individuals；　for　example　Adolf　Hitler　and　Mao　Tse…tung；　so　these　two　individuals　…　the　majority　of　the　people　in　the　world　would　class　them　as　their　enemy；　as　somebody　evil　and　somebody　to　be　hated。　For　example　if　we　concentrate　on　Mao　Tse…tung　then　…　the　Tibetan　and　Chinese　religious　practitioners　would　then　view　him　as　the　most　evil　man　alive；　he　was　their　plete　sworn　enemy　because　it　was　he　who　was　responsible　for　the　destruction　of　all　their　religious　practices　and　so　forth。　However　if　we　look　at　it　from　a　different　angle；　if　we　look　at　it　from　the　angle　of　those　in　China　who　support　the　munist　party；　or　those　for　whom　the　munist　party　holds　a　great　sway；　then　for　them；　Mao　Tse…tung　is　like　their　hero；　somebody　who　is　almost　worshipped　by　them。　So　we　can　say　that　'friend'　and　'enemy'　are　opposites；　there　is　nothing　which　is　both　of　them。　However；　if　we　look　from　different　perspectives　then　we　can　see　that　one　individual　can　exist　at　the　same　time　as　both　somebody's　friend　and　somebody's　enemy。　So　from　one　side　then；　the　name　'enemy'　is　applied　and　from　another　angle　the　name　'friend'　is　applied　to　the　same　object。　This　is　another　opening　into　the　perception　that　there　is　no　object　which　exists　in　and　of　itself；　rather　it　is　just　a　mere　imputation　from　the　side　of　another。

So　then　let　us　take　the　example　of　an　individual　called　'John'。　So　let's　say　this　character　has　a　son；　and　has　a　brother　and　a　wife　and　so　forth。　So　then　this　person　'John'　from　his　father's　side　is　a　son；　and　from　his　own　child's　side　is　a　father；　from　his　wife's　relations'　side　he　is　an　uncle　and　from　his　own　relations'　side　he　is　a　brother　and　so　forth。　So　then　if　this　individual　'John'　was　one　who　existed　as　a　son　in　and　of　himself；　then　even　his　own　son；　his　own　relatives；　his　wife's　relatives　would　all　have　to　view　him　as　such　because　he　is　naturally　existing；　or　existing　from　his　own　side；　as　a　son。　And　the　same　looking　at　it　from　the　child's　perspective　…　seeing　John　as　a　father　…　if　he　was　naturally　existing　as　a　father　then　all　those　other　beings　（his　father；　his　uncles；　his　relations）　would　all　view　him　as　'father'；　so　again　this　is　something　which　is　absurd。　So　through　looking　at　other　people's　perspectives　we　can　see　how　the　labelling　process　provides　us　with　a　person　existing　in　such　a　way；　whether　it　be　as　a　son；　whether　it　be　as　a　father；　uncle　and　so　forth。　If　we　look　at　a　woman　…　for　example　the　woman　has　a　child；　so　from　the　child's　point　of　view；　the　woman　is　a　mother；　but　from　her　mother's　own　point　of　view　she　is　a　daughter；　and　then　from　her　relatives'　point　of　view；　she　is　a　sister　or　an　auntie。　So　with　regard　this　woman；　she　is　being　seen　in　four　pletely　different　ways。　If　she　were　naturally　or　autonomously　a　mother　then　everyone　should　see　her　as　such；　if　she　were　autonomously　a　daughter；　again　everyone　should　see　her　as　such。　But　that　doesn't　occur；　and　the　reason　for　that　is　because　she　doesn't　exist　naturally　or　inherently　as　any　of　those　things　but　rather　from　the　perspective　of　the　mother；　the　child；　the　relative　and　so　forth　she　is　merely　designated　as　mother；　auntie；　and　so　forth。

Establishing　a　phenomenon　in　dependence　on　its　parts

So　then　we　can　look　at　a　quotation　from　the　sutra　which　says　that　just　as　a　chariot　es　into　existence　in　dependence　upon　its　parts　and　the　labelling　process；　in　such　a　way　a　human　being　is　also　known。　So　here　when　we　talk　about　'a　chariot'　we　might　have　some　idea　of　what　a　chariot　is；　but　we　have　to　remember　that　this　was　some　years　ago　when　the　Buddha　gave　this　sutra；　so　nowadays　a　modern　interpretation　might　be　'a　car'。　So　then　if　we　take　'car'　as　the　starting　point　then：　A　car　is　made　up　of　all　its　ponents；　if　we　separate　out　its　ponents；　we　don't　find　something　that　we　can　point　to　as　'car'。　For　example　if　we　were　to　point　to　the　wheel　and　say　'this　is　the　car'；　or　look　at　the　exhaust　and　say　'this　is　the　car'　…　this　is　something　absurd。　So　then　when　we　put　all　the　parts　of　the　car　together；　we　designate　the　name　'car'　upon　the　certain　formation　of　those　parts　and　then　that　serves　as　the　basis　of　designation　of　the　label　'car'。

…five　aggregates　are　not　in　and　of　themselves　the　self；　we　have　to　clarify　this。　If　we　look　at　the　five　aggregates　…　is　the　self　the　form　aggregate？　or　the　feeling　aggregate？　…　and　so　forth　and　right　down　to　the　point　of　having　the　aggregate　of　consciousness。　So　here　then　the　biggest　doubt　es　with　regard　this　aggregate　of　consciousness　because　the　Svatantrika　Madhyamika　then　say　that　this　is　the　self；　this　is　the　autonomously　existing　self。　But　the　simple　negation　of　that　is　that　we　don't　talk　about　possessing　something　which　is　the　'I'　in　the　way　which　we　talk　about　possessing　something　which　is　a　consciousness。　For　example　we　can　easily　say　'my　consciousness'　or　'my　mind'　but　we　don't　say　'my　I'；　do　we？　So　how　can　the　thing　which　is　the　'I'　in　and　of　itself；　that　is　to　say；　the　consciousness；　be　possessed　by　something　which　is　other　than　it？　So　that　is　what　Rinpoche　was　saying　…　can　you　say　'my　I'　or　'my　self'；　not　as　in　'me；　myself'　but　rather　as　in　my　…　other　than　my　…　like　a　glass　…　'my　glass'；　'my　self'　kind　of　thing。　So　is　it　possible　to　say　that？　…　and　obviously　that　is　not　the　case；　and　the　antithesis　then　is　that　we　can　say　with　regard　to　consciousness；　'my　mind'　or　'my　consciousness'；　so　that　kind　of　negates　the　fact　that　the　consciousness　in　and　of　itself　is　the　possessor；　or　that　is　to　say；　the　'I'。

With　regard　objects　then　we've　looked　at　a　car；　but　let's　look　at　something　which　is　more　accessible　to　us　at　the　present　moment　…　if　we　look　at　this　building　and　in　particular　this　hall　which　we　are　now　gathered　in：　This　hall　exists；　we　are　enjoying　the　Dharma　teaching　within　this　hall；　but　if　we　were　to　say　'Where　is　the　hall？'　…　can　we　say　that　it　is　in　the　northern　wall；　the　eastern　wall；　the　southern　wall；　the　western　wall？　If　it　was；　let's　say；　in　the　eastern　wall　…　if　we　then　look　towards　that　wall；　we　could　say　'this　is　the　hall'　and　there　would　be　something　there　which　everybody　would　perceive　as　'the　hall'。　But　if　we　investigate　then；　if　we　look　at　that　wall；　we　find　it　is　a　posite　of　bricks　and　cement　and　wood　and　glass　and　so　forth；　there　is　nothing　there　screaming　out　'hall'　from　its　own　side。

So　through　these　kind　of　reasonings　we　can　e　to　understand　that　the　way　phenomena　exist　is　just　as　a　mere　verbal　designation；　or　as　a　concept；　a　name　which　is　applied　by　a　conceptual　mind　or　a　thought。　So　it　is　in　dependence　upon　these　reasonings　that　we　can　start　to　pass　through　the　gateway　into　the　correct　understanding　of　emptiness　or　the　correct　understanding　of　the　ultimate　nature　of　phenomena。　But　you　have　to　understand　that　this　is　just　the　beginning　…　we　are　just　introducing　those　initial　reasonings；　those　initial　contemplations　as　a　means　to　inspire　you　to　e　to　terms　with；　or　try　to　understand；　what　is　meant　by　'the　object　of　negation'；　and　then　through　that　to　try　to　get　into　the　understanding　of　the　way　that　phenomena　actually　exist。　Because　if　we　were　just　to　say　…　'Well；　we　can't　find　a　hall　in　this　place；　there　is　a　hall　but　we　can't　find　it　…　I've　realised　emptiness！'　…　then　that　would　be　something　that　is　quite　absurd　because　the　realisation　of　emptiness　is　something　extremely　difficult。　A　reason　for　that　is　that　past　masters；　for　example　Dignaga；　have　set　forth　their　various　tenets；　so　we　have　the　four　tenets　school　system　and　so　forth；　so　these　are　not　idiots；　these　are　individuals　who　knew　what　they　were　talking　about。　So　this　is　just　an　introduction　to　the　lines　of　reasoning　which　will　eventually；　if　one　pursues　them；　lead　one　to　a　correct　understanding。　It's　not　as　if　I've　said　'this　is　emptiness　and　you've　got　to　see　this'；　and　now　you've　got　it　because　I've　just　told　you　this　and　you　have　accepted　this。

The　union　of　the　two　realisations　of　dependent　arising　and　emptiness

So　then　returning　to　the　root　text；　it　reads：

　　　　One　who　sees　the　infallible　cause　and　effect
　　　　of　all　phenomena　in　Samsara　and　nirvana
　　　　and　destroys　all　false　perceptions
　　　　has　entered　the　path　that　pleases　the　Buddha。　

So　here　then　when　we　talk　about　'seeing　the　infallible　nature　of　cause　and　effect　of　all　phenomena　within　Samsara　and　nirvana'　…　'samsara'　then　refers　to　the　cycle　of　existence　within　which　one　is　bound　by　the　fetters　of　the　destructive　emotions　and　the　actions；　or　karma；　which　is　generated　thereby；　'nirvana'　here　then　refers　to　an　individual　who　has　destroyed　the　enemy　of　the　gross　destructive　emotions　but　not　perhaps　the　subtle　imprints；　and　has　achieved　the　lesser　nirvana　…　we　could　also　include　within　that　category　the　various　pure　lands　and　so　forth　…　so　all　of　these　experiences；　all　these　places；　e　about　through　the