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！
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 mind； in other words they are not really interested in this mode of phenomena。 However for somebody who has a little more merit； let’s say that they have a doubt towards the mode of phenomena … ‘perhaps there is natural or autonomous existence； perhaps not’ – let’s say they have the doubt which is known as the doubt leaning towards the truth （or leaning towards the true meaning） that phenomena don’t have any inherent existence … for that person they acquire a tremendous amount of positive potential； just through that doubt。 As Aryadeva mentions in his book； just having that doubt is enough to tear the three worlds asunder； that is to say； this reasoning； this doubt； which is tending towards the fact； is one which has the ability to not only remove； but to tear to shreds； any notion that the three worlds exist inherently。 Thus one is able to remove through this the seed of the cycle of existence； and through that then the whole of Samsara for that individual bees something which is withered and then finally non…existent。
So then we need to continually familiarise ourselves using reasons。 Once we have established those reasons we can meditate upon the ultimate nature； or the lack of autonomous existence； of phenomena … this then is something which we need to prove to ourselves using the various reasonings。 For example； when we start to contemplate； we need to have an understanding and then slowly get into the understanding of the nature； or the actual mode of existence； of phenomena。 Then when we start to have queries about that； we can remove those using the various reasonings。 For example； if something has autonomous existence then it cannot be something which arises in dependence upon something else because it’s autonomously existing。 Another example we could use is that if it is a functioning thing； if it has natural or self…existence then it is not something which is brought about by a cause and an effect … but yet it is something that is brought about by a cause and an effect。 So through using these jarring reasonings we can bring ourselves … we can continually familiarise ourselves with the actual mode of phenomena。 For somebody then who has a doubt about the ultimate mode or the ultimate nature of phenomena； for that person we can set the syllogism and then through that we can lead them into that correct understanding。 So if we have some doubt ourselves； then we can perhaps contemplate that the subject – whatever you like – is empty of any autonomous existence because it is a dependent arising or because it is lacking autonomous existence as singular or plural； and through these kinds of reasonings we can bring ourselves onto the path and using the former reasonings； continually familiarise ourselves with that。
Grasping onto inherent existence
So we have to understand how the mind grasps onto true existence。 We have already spoken about how phenomena lack any kind of natural or autonomous existence； so we have to have a look then at the mind which grasps onto autonomous existence； that is to say； a mind which grasps onto inherent existence； and the trouble which is brought about through entertaining such a mind。 So then this is clearly explained in Chandrakirti's book where he says that initially what happens is we have a view of self or 'I'； and in dependence upon this we generate a feeling of possessiveness … for example 'my head'； 'my arms'； 'my possessions'； 'my enjoyment' and so forth。 Then in dependence upon that view of possessiveness； when we engage with various objects； what we find is then mind grasping onto the true pleasure which we perceive to be existing from the side of the object give rise to attachment towards such seemingly true or autonomous existence； and quite the reverse on the other side … for example when a seemingly antithesis for our pleasure es before us； our reaction towards that is of repulsion； we want to get rid of that； we are pletely averse to that object。 When we have those minds then of attachment and aversion we have generated the destructive； or the disturbed； emotions in our being； or in our mind； and once they have arisen and we engage in actions in dependence upon those； we are developing negative karmic seeds within our mental continuum； or mind。 Having brought about those negative karmic seeds； having planted those negative karmic seeds； the result of those are something which is definitely going to be experienced by us in the future。
As they are going to be experienced in the future； how are they going to be experienced then？ They are going to be experienced as none other than existence within the cycle of existence。 So Chandrakirti's book then tells us how initially sentient beings have a notion of an autonomously existing 'I'。 That is to say； we've spoken a lot about how phenomena lack such autonomous existence or true； from its own side； existence and how phenomena （when we use the self as the object of our discussion） exists merely as a nominal designation 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； o