Transcript of the teachings by Khen Rinpoche Geshe Chonyi ... · Transcript of the teachings by...

Amitabha Buddhist Centre Special Insight From Medium-Length Exposition of the Stages of the Path

Lesson 4

of 14

Transcript of the teachings by Khen Rinpoche Geshe Chonyi on Special Insight at Amitabha Buddhist Centre

Root text: Medium-Length Exposition of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment by Lama Tsongkhapa. Course book: Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom, by Jeffrey Hopkins; Snow Lion Publications, 2008. For overall structure and to facilitate easy cross reference, the main headings from the course book are included in these transcripts; they are indented and in italics. Lesson 4 27 April 2019 Root text, p.27—37. General exposition of the prerequisites for special insight. Benefits of contemplating the view. Need to study all tenet systems. Summary. Q & A.

Let us turn immediately to our text. We are looking at this book called Tsongkhapa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom, page 27. We begin with some outlines.

1. THE SOURCE TRADITION (P. 27) The explanation of how to train … … … through meditative cultivation.

Prerequisites for special insight

This section has two parts: … the view in particular. General exposition of the prerequisites for special insight

Kamalashīla’s second [of three works on the] Stages of Meditation … … … the special insight realizing the mode [of being of phenomena]. (P27)

The essential meaning of this passage is that it is very important for us to realize the view of emptiness. If we are able to realize the view of emptiness, then we will be able to free ourselves from cyclic existence, i.e., we will be able to attain liberation. If we fail to do that, then we will be stuck in samsara and we will not be able to liberate ourselves from cyclic existence. So, we need to realize emptiness. In order to realize emptiness, we need to rely on someone who is skilled in the view of


Lesson 4

of 14

emptiness as taught by the Buddha. By depending on the spiritual guide who is able to unmistakenly know the essential points of the scriptures, we then have to generate this view realizing emptiness through the wisdoms of hearing and thinking or contemplation. In that way, we will be able to settle upon this view in an unmistaken way. It is an indispensable prerequisite for us to rely on a teacher unmistakenly and to engage properly in hearing and contemplation. So, we have to know how to engage in hearing and contemplation. BENEFITS OF CONTEMPLATING THE VIEW I don’t remember if I have mentioned this before. It is said in the Buddha’s sutras that if one were to make many offerings of the seven

kinds of precious jewels to the buddhas equal to the atoms of the world systems, such a person will accumulate a lot of merit. It is said that compared to such an offering, if one were to engage in hearing scriptures that teach emptiness and learn about the view of emptiness, one will create far more merit.

Then compared to the merit of hearing about the view of emptiness, the merit of contemplating the view of emptiness and generating an ascertaining consciousness regarding what one has heard, the latter merit is said to be even greater.

If one then engages in familiarizing oneself with and meditating on the meaning of emptiness that has been contemplated, one will create even greater merit than just contemplating the view of emptiness.

So, we should bear in mind what is said in the sutras and make the effort to engage in hearing, contemplating and meditating on the texts that teach emptiness. If we are able to do that, we will be able to accumulate an infinite collection of merit. In Aryadeva’s Four Hundred Stanzas, he talks about how even generating a doubt with respect to emptiness can shake the very foundation of samsara. So, one can think about emptiness and as a result, generate doubt. We know that doubt is of three types: 1. doubt tending towards fact 2. equal doubt 3. doubt not tending towards fact According to what is stated in this stanza of Aryadeva’s text, if one generates a doubt tending towards fact, thinking, “Hmm, is emptiness like that? Maybe it is like that.” Such a thought is very, very powerful. It has the ability to shatter samsara. So, just generating a doubt tending towards fact, thinking, “Well, perhaps emptiness is like that,” is so powerful. Therefore, we should make an effort to contemplate on emptiness. In the same text by Aryadeva, he said that those with little merit will not even generate a doubt with respect to emptiness. What this means is that even to wonder about the meaning of emptiness requires a considerable amount of merit. So, if someone has no merit, this person will not even wonder about emptiness nor generate a doubt with respect to emptiness. From our side, we need to be interested in knowing about emptiness. We need to have some curiosity and we need to have some wish to learn about emptiness. On that basis,


Lesson 4

of 14

then we can engage in hearing explanations and reading books that explain emptiness. If we are able to do that, this is a sign that we are persons of good fortune because being able to have such interest in itself is a result of our merit. So, knowing this, we should generate joy and feel happy to be able to listen to such explanations, to contemplate and so on. This is important. If we are not able to generate this kind of joyful attitude, then hearing the explanations on emptiness can become a kind of hardship. This should not be the case. Regardless of what kind of activity we embark on, we should understand the benefits of that activity. If we understand the benefits, then we will feel enthusiastic about engaging in that activity. In our case, we should remember that just hearing these explanations of emptiness will bring a lot of merit. So, by engaging in learning and contemplation, we will be able to accumulate boundless merit as explained in the sutras I have mentioned earlier. If a person were to make offerings filling all the world systems equal to the number of particles in all these world systems, this person will accumulate infinite merit. Compared to that, the merit of engaging in hearing explanations of emptiness is far greater. This is based on the Buddha’s words. So remembering that, we should generate great enthusiasm in learning about emptiness. If you have no idea what benefits there are in engaging in studying emptiness, then you will not feel enthusiastic about doing this kind of activity. Therefore, it is important for you to bear in mind the benefits as explained by the Buddha and to have confidence and faith in his statements. In that way, you will be able to generate enthusiasm and enjoy this activity of learning about emptiness. It all depends on your attitude. If you are able to generate this motivation wanting to learn about emptiness, wanting to engage in hearing, contemplation and so forth, then starting from that motivation, every step you take enables you to create an enormous amount of merit. So, by understanding these benefits, you should understand that it is very meritorious to engage in such an activity and you should feel very fortunate to be able to do so. With that understanding, you will be able to engage in the learning of emptiness very joyously. With that, let us carry on reading the text. There are these outlines that are sometimes added to the text. These outlines are composed by Trijang Rinpoche.

The need to follow any of the great trail-blazers as appropriate1 Furthermore, such a view … … … an unmistaken commentary [of Buddha’s] thought. (p.27—28)

In relation to the presentation of the view, there are many scriptures. The Buddha taught interpretable meaning scriptures and also definitive meaning scriptures. Between these 1 The outlines by Trijang Rinpoche are set in bold and are in Calibri font to differentiate them from the outlines that appear in the course book itself.


Lesson 4

of 14

two types of scriptures, we need to mainly rely on the definitive meaning scriptures. In other words, not everything that the Buddha taught is literally acceptable. So, we may need to rely on those that are literally acceptable. We have mentioned in a previous class that there are various openers of the chariot tracks or trailblazers. For example, Asanga is the opener of the chariot tracks of the Mind Only School (Cittamatra) and Nagarjuna is the opener of the chariot tracks of the Middle Way School (Madhyamaka). Here, it is stated that we need to rely on a treatise by one of the great valid openers of the chariot tracks or chariot-way who commentated on the Buddha’s thought. In this context, we will be relying on Nagarjuna’s treatise in order to settle on the view, to hear about the teachings on emptiness and to contemplate their meaning.

The need to seek the view relying on Nagarjuna's system On whom should you rely? … … … in dependence on his texts. (p. 28)

It is not the case that the Buddha did not teach emptiness in his sutras so that you have to rely on somebody else. The Buddha did teach emptiness in the sutras but it is difficult for us to understand the sutras. The Buddha himself prophesied that Nagarjuna will come and clarify the profound meaning of emptiness. Therefore, we have to seek the view of emptiness by relying on the text of Nagarjuna.

2. How the [various] ways of explaining Nagarjuna's intended meaning emerged A. Identification of the original Madhyamika B. Examination of the designations used by earlier generations C. The validity of explanations in accor[dance] with that of Yeshe De on the

authors of Madhyamika treatises and the stages by which the Madhyamika systems of Sautrantrika and Yogachara emerged

D. These terms are not suited to Master Chandrakirti E. The validity of the terms Svatantrika and Prasangika associated with scholars

of the later propagation F. Which of the masters we follow [here]

A. Identification of the original Madhyamika

Since Āryadeva is taken … … … for the others. (p.28)

This passage is saying that Nagarjuna and his spiritual son Aryadeva are the original models or the prototypes of the Madhyamaka. All Madhyamikas will take Nagarjuna and Aryadeva as their source. This means that all the various masters will explain according to how Nagarjuna and Aryadeva had explained.


Lesson 4

of 14

The other Middle Way masters are called the “partisan Proponents of the Middle.” This means all Middle Way masters besides Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are “partisan Proponents of the Middle.” Examples are Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Chandrakirti and Shantarakṣhita.

B. Examination of the designations used by earlier generations a. Terms applied from the point of view of how conventionalities are established b. Terms applied from the point of view of how the ultimate is asserted c. How that designation to do with the way of asserting the ultimate is obscured

a. Terms applied from the point of view of how conventionalities are established

Some earlier [Tibetan] spiritual guides … … … there are no external objects. (p. 28-29)

These are the ways that earlier generations impute the names.

b. Terms applied from the point of view of how the ultimate is asserted

They also [wrongly] said … … … the definitions “illusion-like” and “thoroughly non-abiding.” (p. 29—30)

c. How that designation to do with the way of asserting the ultimate is obscured

The great translator … … … generating amazement.” (p.30)

Going back to page 29, we see how earlier Tibetans have designated two types of Proponents of the Middle from the viewpoint of how they posit conventionalities. After that, there is also an explanation of how they designate two types of Proponents of Middle from the viewpoint of how they assert the ultimate. Even though these designations are presented here, you have to think about whether these designations are correct or not. At the top of page 29, it says that the Sutric Proponents of the Middle “assert that external objects exist in conventional terms.” For example, we say that Chandrakirti and Buddhapalita assert that external objects exist in conventional terms. However, are they called Sutric Proponents of the Middle? They are not. This means that this designation is not correct. Even though they come out with this kind of two-fold designations, if you were to ask which of the two applies to Chandrakirti, in fact, Chandrakirti is neither a Sutric Proponent of the Middle nor a Yogic Proponent of the Middle. This means that these designations are not correct. The earlier Tibetans also looked at their designations from the viewpoint of the assertion of the ultimate. They talked about how there are proponents who assert that a composite of the appearance of, say, a sprout, the subject, and the emptiness of true existence of the


Lesson 4

of 14

sprout is an ultimate truth, i.e., the combination of these two is an ultimate truth. Based on that, they propound an establishment of illusion. These proponents are called those who propound “an establishment of illusion by a rational consciousness.” On page 30, according to these earlier Tibetans, who are those who propound that such a composite of the appearance of the subject and its absence of true existence as an ultimate truth? They are masters such as Shantarakshita and Kamalashila. How does our system regard such an assertion? Our system says that this is not correct. In fact, our system says that Shantarakshita, Kamalashila and so forth never asserted such a composite to be an ultimate truth. They say that if you look at these masters, none of them ever asserted anything like that. This means that this kind of designation is also not correct. According to our system, if you have such a composite of the appearance of the subject and its absence of true existence, this is not an ultimate truth at all. This is a conventional truth albeit a subtle form of conventional truth. What does our system posit as an ultimate truth? With respect to the appearance of the subject, the mere negation of the object of negation, that itself is emptiness. So, the mere negation of the elaborations of true existence is ultimate truth. The composite that they talk about, being an illusion and so forth, is not what we posit as an ultimate truth. Then there are also the proponents of thorough non-abiding, the second kind of designation. In brief, from the point of view of our system, we also say that this designation is not correct. On page 30, it says, “Some Indians also accepted the designations ‘illusion-like’ and ‘thoroughly non-abiding.’” Indeed, for example, the master Ashvaghosa (or Aryasura) accepted such designations. You do see the term, “illusion-like” referring to the Svatantrika (Autonomy Middle Way School) and the term “thoroughly non-abiding” referring to the Prasangika (Consequence Middle Way School).

The great translator [Lo-den-shay-rap rightly] says … generating amazement.” (p.30)

Indeed, to claim that a composite of the appearance of the subject and of its absence of true existence as an ultimate truth is something that generates amazement. In Shantarakshita’s Ornament for the Middle, he says that the composite of a sprout and its absence of true existence is a concordant ultimate. However, it is not an actual ultimate truth. This assertion is different from what these earlier Tibetans were saying. So no Proponent of the Middle Way ever asserted that a composite of the appearance of the subject and of its absence of true existence is an ultimate truth. To say that is a presentation that causes amazement.

C. The validity of explanations in accordance with that of Yeshe De on the authors of Madhyamika treatises and the stages by which the Madhyamika systems of


Lesson 4

of 14

Sautrantrika and Yogachara emerged.

Concerning this, the master Ye-shay-day explains that: … … … in accordance with that [explanation by Ye-shay-day]. (p. 30—32)

It is mentioned at the top of page 31, “In the Middle Way treatises by the Superior father [Nāgārjuna] and his spiritual son [Āryadeva], whether external objects exist or not is not clear.” We would say that in the texts of Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, we do find clear explanations of whether or not external objects exist. However, in their Middle Way treatises, i.e., the treatises that explain the Middle Way, by Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, it is not clearly explained whether external objects exist or not. “After them, the master Bhāvaviveka refuted the system of Cognition-Only [or Mind-Only] and presented a system in which external objects exist in conventional terms.” The Mind-Only School refutes external objects. They say that external objects do not exist even in conventional terms. Bhavaviveka refuted this view of the Mind-Only system. He presented a system in which external objects exist in conventional terms because he said that it is not correct to say that objects are in the nature of mind. He basically explained the difference between the use of autonomous syllogisms and the use of consequences. He said that it is correct to use autonomous syllogisms. Thus he came to be known as the opener of the chariot-way of the Sautrantika (Madhayamaka) system (Sutric Autonomy Middle Way School). There are two sub-schools of the Autonomy Middle Way School: 1. the Sutric Autonomy Middle Way School 2. the Yogic Autonomy Middle Way School Between these two, Bhavaviveka is the opener of the chariot-way of the Sutric Autonomy Middle Way School because he asserted the existence of external objects in the way the Sautrantika School asserted them. Masters who followed Bhavaviveka in his assertions, such as Jnanagarbha and so forth, are also proponents of the Sutric Autonomy Middle Way School. “Then, the master Shāntarakṣhita made a different Middle Way system, teaching—based on Yogic Practice [that is, Mind-Only] treatises—that external objects do not exist in conventional terms and that the mind ultimately is without inherent existence.” Shantarakshita had a different explanation from Bhavaviveka. He says that external objects do not exist in conventional terms in accordance with the Cittamatra (Mind-Only School) treatises. However, even though he asserts that external objects do not exist in conventional terms, he asserts that ultimately, the mind is without inherent existence. This latter assertion is slightly different from what the Mind-Only School would say. Through his system, Shantarakshita opened the chariot tracks of the Yogic Autonomy Middle Way School. Masters who followed him such as Kamalashila are known as Proponents of the Yogic Autonomy Middle Way School. We can say that there are these two sub-schools within the Autonomy Middle Way School: In the first case, the Sutric Autonomy Middle Way School do assert that external


Lesson 4

of 14

objects exist in conventional terms. They basically assert external objects in accordance with the Sautrantika School (Sutra School). These are the assertions of the proponents of the Sutric Autonomy Middle Way School.

The other sub-school asserts that there are no external objects in conventional terms. Their assertion is based on the assertion of the Mind-Only School or the School of Yogic practice. This branch is called the Yogic Autonomy Middle Way School.

D. These terms are not suited to Master Chandrakirti

However, although the master Chandrakīrti … … … is also not feasible. (p. 32—33)

The Consequence Middle Way School (Prasangika Madhyamaka School) does assert the existence of external objects in conventional terms. Chandrakirti also asserts that external objects exist in conventional terms. However, he does not do so by comparing his assertion with that of another tenet system. This is why the text says, “However, although the master Chandrakīrti asserts that external objects exist in conventional terms, he does not do so in comparison with another tenet system.” In other words, even though he asserts external objects, he does not assert external objects in the way the Sautrantika system asserts external objects. “That he asserts external objects in accordance with the Proponents of the Great Exposition is also not feasible.” In the Great Exposition School (the Vaibhashika system), it is asserted that there are no self-knowers. On that basis, external objects are asserted. It is also not the case that Chandrakirti asserts external objects in the way the Vaibhashikas assert them. This section of the text relies upon having some background knowledge of the tenets. If you have studied tenets previously and you remember what was explained, then this section can make sense. If you have not studied tenets before, then this section may not make much sense to you. If you recall, the Great Exposition School deny self-knowers but they say that there are

external objects and that these external objects exist truly. When you go up to the Sutra School (Sautrantika School), they say that not only do

external objects exist but self-knowers also exist and both of them are truly existent. Then when you move up, you have the Cittamatra system (Mind-Only School) in which

it is said that there are no external objects but there are truly existent self-knowers. Going up to the Autonomy Middle Way School, there are two sub-schools, the Yogic

Autonomy Middle Way School and the Sutric Autonomy Middle Way School. In the Yogic Autonomy Middle Way School, they have an assertion similar to the Yogic Practice School, i.e., the Mind-Only School, in that they assert that there are no external objects but there are self-knowers. However, there is no true existence. Nothing is truly established.

Then when you move up to the Consequence Middle Way School (Prasangika Madhyamaka), we do not find sub-divisions such as the Yogic School or the Sutric School. In the Prasangika system, external objects are asserted. They say that all


Lesson 4

of 14

phenomena are merely imputed so when it is said that there are external objects, it is not as though they are doing so by basing themselves on the Sautrantika system. When they say that all phenomena are merely imputed, it is not that they are claiming that all phenomena are in the nature of the mind as asserted by the Cittamatra system.

In the future if we have time, then we can discuss how the various tenets systems regard external objects. In the systems that assert external objects, how do the Vaibhashika and Sautrantika Schools assert the existence of external objects? As we move up to the Cittamatra system, they deny external objects. If the Autonomy Middle Way School and the Consequence Middle Way School assert external objects, how do they assert their existence?

E. The validity of the terms Svatantrika and Prasangika associated with scholars of the later dissemination The terminology of Autonomist and Consequentialist … … … they are limited to two types—Autonomists and Consequentialists. (p.34— 35)

When we divide the Proponents of the Middle Way into two—the Middle Way Autonomists and the Middle Way Consequentialists—we should understand that the Proponents of the Middle are limited to two types: those that assert external objects in conventional terms those that do not assert external objects in conventional terms

F. Which of the masters we follow [here]

Question: Following whom … … … also held that system to be chief. (p. 36)

The next paragraph explains how Je Rinpoche himself asserts the two systems, Buddhapalita's and Chandrakirti's, as the main ones and then Bhavaviveka's as important.

The master Chandrakīrti, … … … commented on the Superior’s thought. (p.36)

The information in this paragraph is not new as I have explained this before. Nagarjuna composed the Treatise on the Middle (also known as Fundamental Wisdom) and Buddhapalita is one of the first commentators on this text. In his text, Buddhapalita did not make it clear that the use of consequences is correct and the use of autonomy syllogisms is incorrect. Nevertheless, his commentary is an unmistaken commentary on Nagarjuna’s thought. Seeing that Buddhapalita’s commentary is a complete explanation of Nagarjuna’s thought, Chandrakirti followed Buddhapalita’s text.


Lesson 4

of 14

Bhavaviveka also wrote a commentary to Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle. In his text, even though there are many good explanations, there are some parts that are incorrect. In his commentary, Bhavaviveka propounded the use of autonomous syllogisms. Chandrakirti was able to see that there are some parts that are not correct but there are also other parts that are good explanations. So, Chandrakirti took those parts that are good explanations. In fact, there were many debates surrounding these commentaries. After Bhavaviveka saw Buddhapalita’s commentary on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle, he actually criticized Buddhapalita, saying that Buddhapalita’s commentary is not completely correct. He then wrote his own explanations, which he thought was correct. Chandrakirti came along and defended Buddhapalita saying that Buddhapalita is the one who is correct and Bhavaviveka is the one who made a mistake. So there are many debates that are centred on their compositions. We move on to another outline.

How these two masters are always important with respect to explaining the profound meaning Because the commentaries by these two masters … … … Buddhapālita and Chandrakīrti. (p.36)

This paragraph is saying that Buddhapalita commented on Nagarjuna’s thought in a correct way. Chandrakirti in following Buddhapalita’s text also gave a correct explanation. In other word, these two masters, Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti, correctly explained the texts of Nagarjuna, the father and his spiritual son, Aryadeva. Lama Tsongkhapa is saying since that is the case, he will follow the commentaries of Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti to explain the view on emptiness. In this way, we have completed this section. We should understand that the Buddha gave many types of teachings in accordance with the trainees’ dispositions, mentalities and faculties. Not all of these teachings accord with reality. Some actually do not accord with reality. So, we need to know how to differentiate between interpretable meaning scriptures and definitive meaning scriptures. The Buddha himself declared very clearly, “Monks and scholars, do not accept my teachings out of faith. Examine them as a goldsmith would burn, rub and cut gold. Accept my teachings only after you have examined them and found them to be correct.” The view of selflessness is taught differently by the various tenet systems. They have their own ways of explaining how the self does not exist. In the highest tenet system, the system of the Consequence Middle Way School, we have the explanation presented by Nagarjuna. Based on his explanation, Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti composed their explanations. We need to study these texts and understand how to delineate selflessness exactly as it is. Therefore, the study of these texts becomes


Lesson 4

of 14

very important. There were many scholars who explained the view of selflessness or emptiness. Who should we follow? This is not an easy question to answer. According to Lama Tsongkhapa, we should follow the masters, Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti. NEED TO STUDY ALL TENET SYSTEMS In order to know that the explanation of the Prasangika system is correct is again something that is not easy. You need to study many texts such as the presentation of the Mind-Only School, the Sutra School, the Autonomy Middle Way School and so forth. It is only by studying the various systems extensively that you will be able to understand that the lower systems contain inaccuracies and that the system of the Consequence Middle Way School is correct. Based on that, you will understand that the presentations given by Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti are accurate. Sometimes, this question may come up. “Since the Consequence Middle Way School is the final system, why do we need to bother to study the lower tenet systems? Why do we need to study the systems of the Great Exposition School, the Sutra School, the Mind-Only School and the Autonomy Middle Way School? We can straightaway study the Consequence Middle Way School since that is the final and the correct system.” But if you were to do that, you may have difficulties appreciating the Prasangika system because you are not able really to see what is so distinctive about their assertions. In fact, you should study the lower systems. You can start by assuming that all of them are not correct and then you try to understand what they are saying. If you do that, when you eventually look at the view of the Consequence Middle Way School, you will be able to generate confidence in their assertions and appreciate them better. Through this process, you will be able to arrive at a very stable conviction in the validity of the Prasangika system. So, we have completed the outline, A. General exposition of the prerequisites for special insight (that covers pages 27 to 36 in the course book). Next we are going to look at: B. How to delineate the view in particular On page 27, it mentions:

Prerequisites for special insight

This section has two parts: … the view in particular.

What we have done today, we have completed the first outline, “General exposition of the prerequisites for special insight.” During the next session, we will look at the second outline, “How to delineate the view in particular.”


Lesson 4

of 14

SUMMARY To summarize what we have discussed today, we talked about the prerequisites for special insight. In order to develop this view of emptiness we need to satisfy certain prerequisites. You must have this thought, “I must develop this view of emptiness. This view of emptiness is crucial. I must know about this view of emptiness.” In order to generate this view of emptiness, you need to rely on a teacher who is able

to unmistakenly explain the essential points of the scriptures based on his own unmistaken understanding of the scriptures.

You have to hear the explanation of the view of emptiness from the teacher. Besides that, you have to also think about what you have heard. These steps are important. It is only through these steps that you can generate certainty regarding the view of emptiness. It is stated that you have to rely on a teacher. Not any teacher will suffice. You have to rely on a teacher who actually understands unmistakenly all the essential points of the scriptures that explain emptiness. It is only by relying on such a teacher that you are able to understand emptiness correctly. You should proceed in this way. There are many teachers who have explained emptiness. As said by Lama Tsongkhapa, here, we are relying on Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti. This is because it is seen that their explanations accord with the intention of the scriptures. So, we need to hear explanations of their way of commentating on emptiness and we need to engage in contemplation. Lama Tsongkhapa himself relied upon the texts composed by Nagarjuna and Aryadeva and also Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti. He then composed his own exposition on the view of emptiness. As mentioned previously, he wrote five treatises explaining the view of emptiness: 1. The Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path explains the special insight into

emptiness. 2. Ocean of Reasoning is the commentary on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle. 3. Essence of Eloquence is the Treatise Differentiating Interpretable and Definitive

Meanings. 4. The Middle Length Exposition of the Stages of the Path contains the small special insight

into emptiness. 5. Illumination of the Thought is the commentary on Chandrakirti’s Supplement to

(Nagarjuna’s) Treatise on the Middle. These expositions all rely on the explanations of Nagarjuna and Aryadeva as well as Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti. In the next session, we will be discussing this very important section, starting on page 37. The main outline is:

How delineate the view in particular This section has three parts: … … … seek the view of selflessness. (p. 37)


Lesson 4

of 14

All of these sections are very important. It is very important that you read before you come to class. Read at least one or two pages and then think about the meaning (of what you have read). Then when you come to class and listen to Rinpoche’s explanations, if you have questions, then you can ask them. If you had read the text beforehand, thought about the meaning and have doubts or questions, when you come to class and you find the answers to your questions, then you will attain a certain kind of satisfaction and joy. This will really make a difference to your understanding. For that reason, it is very important that you make some effort to prepare before you come to class. If you had read the text, thought about it, really have questions in your mind and thinking about how to resolve your doubts, then when you come to class and get the answers to your questions, it really make a difference to your mind. Just coming to class and asking random questions without having really thought about them is not the same. For this reason, you should make this effort to read before you come to class. Q & A Question: In page 32, footnote b says, “According to Tsong-kha-pa’s explanation of Shāntarakṣhita’s views, the mind conventionally exists inherently but does not ultimately exist inherently.” How does Shantarakshita reconcile the difference of this contradiction of the conventional and ultimate truths existing on the same basis, the mind? Sze Gee: Are you asking doesn’t Shantarakshita see the contradiction between the mind conventionally existing inherently and not ultimately existing inherently? Student 1: Yes. Answer: There is no contradiction. In the Prasangika system, there are many terms that are equivalent—to exist inherently, to exist from its own side, to exist ultimately, to exist truly and so forth. They all mean the same thing. However, in the Autonomy Middle Way School (the Svatantrika system), to exist inherently is not the same as to exist truly. They say that phenomena exist inherently but they do not exist truly. According to Shantarakshita, the mind exists by way of its own character but it does not exist truly. Why do they say that phenomena exist by way of its own character? This is because

when you look for a phenomenon, you will be able to find it. When you look for the imputed phenomenon among its basis of imputation, you will be able to find it.

They say that phenomena do not exist truly. To understand what that means, you need to know what the object of negation is according to the Autonomy Middle Way School. They say that to exist truly means to exist by way of its uncommon mode of subsistence without being posited through the force of appearing to a non-defective awareness. They say that such a form of existence does not exist, which is why


Lesson 4

of 14

phenomena do not exist truly. According to Shantarakshita, to exist inherently and to exist truly are different. He has different criteria or measures for these terms. So, there is no contradiction between existing inherently but not existing truly. But in the Prasangika system, these two terms mean the same thing. They are just different names for the same thing. Question: On page 32, there is a sentence that says, “Then the master Shantarakshita made a different Middle Way system, teaching—based in Yogic Practice [that is, Mind-Only] treatises—that external objects do not exist in conventional terms and that the mind ultimately is without inherent existence.” Is this the same thing as what Rinpoche has explained? Shantarakshita said that there is inherent existence but there is no true existence. But this sentence says, “… that the mind ultimately is without inherent existence.” There seems to be a contradiction. Answer: Yes, this accords exactly with what I have explained. According to Shantarakshita, the mind ultimately is without inherent existence. This is correct because according to his system, the mind is ultimately without inherent existence but it is (conventionally) inherently existent. You must see the word “ultimately” there. So, the mind inherently exists but it does not ultimately inherently exist. This is exactly what the footnote said. As I have mentioned previously, it is not easy to read this text and understand everything in a short period of time. You do need to put in the time and effort. If it is some short passage or suchlike, you can perhaps understand it pretty quickly using a few sentences with explanations. But when it comes to reading a text like this, if you want to go through every single word and understand everything completely, you do need to put in the effort, time and energy. It is not easy to understand every little thing. But it is important to remember the benefits of doing so. Try your best to read the text and understand that this activity will bring about countless benefits. You will accumulate infinite merit. This is something that all of us should try to do. Interpreted by Toh Sze Gee. Transcribing team: Phuah Soon Ek, Patricia Lee, Lau Geok Chin, Alison Wong, Rachel Tan, Aki Yeo, Julia Koh and Vivien Ng. Edited by Cecilia Tsong.

Transcript of the teachings by Khen Rinpoche Geshe Chonyi ... · Transcript of the teachings by...

Documents

Transcript of Transcript of the teachings by Khen Rinpoche Geshe Chonyi ... · Transcript of the teachings by...