As mentioned in the verse of The Foundation of All Good ...



Transcript of the teachings by Geshe Chonyi

Root text from The Medium-Length Exposition of the Stages of the Path of Enlightenment Practised by Persons of Three Capacities by Lama Tsongkhapa, translation Jeffrey Hopkins, Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom © 2008 Jeffrey Hopkins, Snow Lion Publications.

All outline references refer to the outline by Trijang Rinpoche unless otherwise stated. Outlines are in bold.

Lesson No: 40 Date: 24th February 2011

It is insufficient just to just listen to hear the teachings. [1] The purpose of listening to hearing the teachings is so that you so we can reflect on them. it. But such rReflection ng alone is also not enough. and You we have to meditate or familiarisze your mind with what you we have ascertained through your reflection. The effect that we get ffrom these three- folds activities of listening tohearing the teaching, reflecting on that and then meditating on the teachings becomes progressively more powerful.

By listening to the Just hearing the teachings alone, it is quite difficult to be able to eliminate whatever kind of doubts or any kind of wrong concepts or superimpositions of the teachings of the Buddha. Just hearing alone is not enough to remove all those.. You We have to reflect on and analysze whatever you we have heard to the extent that you we generate develop an ascertainment in your heart, thinking: “Oh, this is really the case! It is like this. ! It is not like that.”

Then Wwhatever you we have ascertain ed in our heart, we should be should mixed that with in your mind such that it becomes onee with the mind. That is what we call meditation. This is what you how we have to do in relation to when we talk about practiscing. The three steps are:

1. Listening to Hearing the teachings

2. Analysing se and reflecting on of what you we have heard in order to gain an ascertainment

3. After we have gaining that a real ascertainment of the teachings, you we then familiarisze your mind with what you we have ascertained. This is what we call meditation.

I think I have mentioned before about the kind of imprints that areis left on the mind through these three- folds activities of listening to, then hearing the teaching, reflecting on that and then meditating on the teachings. What You we want is to place a very stable and strong imprints of the Buddha’s teachings on your mental continuum but I don’t think you we will be able to do that simply place a strong and stable imprint on our mind by by listening to just hearing the teachings alone.

On the basis of listening to hearing the the teachings, when you if we reflect on and analysze of what you we havhave e heard, then the imprints that areis left on in your mental continuum through those e activities of reflection and analysis areis much stronger. On top of that, Furthermore, if you we are able to meditate on what you we have ascertained, and familiarising yoze our mind with your ascertainment, what we have ascertained, then there is then hope that the imprints that is left on your mind through meditation will serve you serve us from lifeves to lifeves.

This is quite obvious when you if we llook at your own life experiences in life. You would have heard There are many things in your life, that we hear in our life; different kinds of conversations, different people saying different things. Usually, Weyou just hear them and don’t won’t think much about them. You are it. It is unlikely that we willto remember them in the long run. We tend to forget some of these things. But when if you we give some thought to think about some of the things that you we have heard, then the chances of you us forgetting them that are much is lower. When If there is something you hear sticks in your that you have heard and that stick to your mind, for whatever reason, and become part of your mind, then you will probably remember it for life.

So Mmy point is this. I, it is not sufficient or enough just to just llisten to the teachings. That is not enough. You We must always reflect over and over again on what you we have heard, analysing it ze to gain an ascertainment. A as much as possible, to make the teachings one with your mind.

This is one area that we you need to focus your attention on and put effort into. this. This is something that Yyou all already know this and have heard this before. about it. TThis is just a reminder.

***************

As I have mentioned before, we have this suffering body and mind, . In our language we call it the these contaminated or /appropriated physical and mental aggregates. They suffering body and mind that we have bring us non-stop problems non-stop, ; one after another. Why is it like thatthis? Why d do o we have thithis s suffering body and mind in the first place? They come This suffering body and mind that we have arose from the actions that we have have accumulated in the past. What motivated us to engage in those actions in the first place? Our action/karma is motivated by our afflictive emotions.

Nagarjuna mentioned in his Fundamental Wisdom that our afflictive emotions arises primarily from our the superstitious thoughts (or conceptual thoughts). Specifically, in technical language, it is our the incorrect mental attention that causes us to think of many things.

Our suffering body and mind came come from our actions which, in turn, and our actions are motivated by our afflictive emotions. Our afflictive emotions arises primarily because of our this incorrect mental attention, and this superstitious mind and thought thinking about all sorts of things.

How From where does this incorrect mental attention arisearise? It arises from, in elaboration. In this context, elaboration here refers to the elaboration of true existence. What does this mean? It is basically a mind that Wwhile things and events, in reality, do not exist inherently, do not exist truly, but theis mind elaborating on of true existencet mind looks at the object and superimposes something which does not actually exist onto the object which does not actually exist.

Basically what we are trying to say here is that Tthe elaboration of true existence is ignorance, ; which is the root of all our every single problems and every single suffering that we have. The root is this ignorance projecting true existence.

Can this ignorance or elaboration of true existence be removed? The answer is: yes. , Iit can be removed by the mind realiszing emptiness.

The mind which realizes emptiness can eradicate ignorance.

You have to understand that all y our problems, without exception, comes from your own actionss and that those our actions are motivated by your afflictive emotions. The root of all your afflictive emotions is this ignorance apprehending things and events to be real, / to be inherently existent, / to be truly existent. The antidote to this ignorance is the mind realiszing emptiness. You have to understand this. You have to gain an ascertainment ofn this. This is really important.

What you we don’t want at the end of the day is suffering and problems. If you we don’t want problems and you we don’t want suffering, then you we have to do something about it. If we don’t want problem, wYou e have to stop the cause of your problems which is your are our action (/karma). So You we have to stop karma and . iIn order to do thisstop action in the first place, you we have to stop the forces that motivate karma. That means you we have to stop the afflictive emotions in your mind. But if you we do not stop or eradicate the root of your afflictive emotions, the very thing that gives rise to our afflictive emotion, then there is no way to stop themour afflictive emotion.

The conclusion then here is that if you we don’t want problems, you we have to stop or eradicate ignorance. What is the only thing that can do thiseradicate ignorance? It is the mind realiszing emptiness, ; the reality of all things and events. So Youwe must have to gain the an ascertainment, – the real understanding that this is the case.

Once you we have gain this ascertained thisment, you will we uunderstand all the implications of what that I have just explained. Then Nnaturally, you will develop this thought in your mind, : “I really have no choice now. I must realisze emptiness. There is no other way out.” That will produce in you an enthusiasm for and interest in to cultivating e the antidote, that is, – the wisdom realising zes emptiness. This ententhusiasm will propel you to put effort into studying learning theseis teachings which shows you how to do thatit. That is the point.

So Iit is becomes extremely important to be able to realisze how important it is for all of us individually to gain an understanding of reality, which is - emptiness. What good does it do to us when if we realisze emptiness? Understanding this is so important.

On that basis, then you then hhave to investigate carefully what are the texts that you can place your trust in. whose teachings Whose teaching on emptiness and what texts on emptiness can you can place your trust. in? Which areis the unmistaken and the completely reliable texts? So Yyou need have to understand what those texts are. Then, you put effort into studying, reflecting and meditating on those teachings that are found in those authoritative and unmistaken texts. teachings.

I have already talked about the differenticult explanations on selflessness before. As you know that there are The four philosophical systems, i.e., the four tenets. They all have their own way of explaining selflessness. For example, there is the an explanation of the emptiness of a permanent, unitary and independent self. There is also an explanation of the self devoid of as devoid of being self-sufficient and substantially existent. Then there is We also have tthe MOS’s explanation of how the perceived object and the perceiver are not of separate entities. But aAll these explanations cannot serve as the antidote to our ignorance.

The lower tenets, with the exception of the Prasangika-Madhyamika (CMWS), assert that the apprehension of the self of phenomena constitute the obstruction to omniscience. But according to the highest tenet, the CMWS, there are two apprehensions of the self - the: apprehension of the self of persons and the apprehension of the self of phenomena – and . According to the CMWS, both of these apprehensions constitute the obstructions to liberation. This is the difference.

Can someone body explain why the lower tenets assert that the apprehension of the self of phenomena constitute the obstruction to omniscience whereas the highest tenet, the CMWS, assert that both the apprehension of the self of persons and apprehension of the self of phenomena are obstructions to liberation?

(Responses from students).

Why the lower schools assert that the apprehension of the self of phenomena is the obstruction to omniscience?

Why, according to CMWS, the apprehension of the self of phenomena is obstruction to liberation?

The reason why I am asking you this question is to highlight the fact that, in order to understand theseis teachings, you will never achieve anything by listening hearing alone will never achieve anything. In order to understand the teaching In order to understand these teachings, , you we have to usetilize your brain to think and analysze. Only then we can get the understanding come. Otherwise, it is impossible for that it to happen.

(Response from student)

By overcoming the apprehension of the self of persons, one can achieve liberation, isn’t it? What is wrong with saying that to overcome the obstructions to omniscience, one then have to overcome the apprehension of the self of phenomena?

(Response from student)

If I say that the root of samsara is the apprehension of the self of persons and not the apprehension of the self of phenomena, what would you say?

The root of our samsara is the view of the transitory collection – apprehending ‘‘me”. There is nothing to do with anything else other than the “‘I.”’

You have to understand that in the process of the debate, it whatever comes out ddoes not necessarily y means that you believe what I am we are saying is the truth, that I believe what I am saying. But it is said for the sake of debate. just to motivate you. TYou his you have to understand this. Otherwise, Geshela is wondering you may go home thinking: “It is this and not that.”

What is the reason for the highest school, the CMWS, for positing the apprehension of the self of phenomena as an the obstruction to liberation?

The AMWS asserts that the apprehension of the self of phenomena is an obstruction to omniscience whereas the CMWS assert that it is an obstruction to liberation. Whaty is the reason for thise difference?

(A discussion on Geshe-la’s question ensues).Few students participated in the discussion)

Answer by student: For the AMWS, the two selflessnesses are differentiated according to the object of negation and not the bases of emptiness. Of the two selflessnesses, one is asserted to be the obstructions to liberation because by merely abandoning the self of persons, one is able to achieve the end result, libeeration.

Whereas for the CMWS, the two selflessnesses are differentiated not with respect to the object of negation which is inherent existence. They are differentiated according to the base, the substratum of the emptiness of the object they are focussing on. Therefore, for them, the obstruction to liberation is just this: the mode of apprehension of inherent existence. So if you have not abandoned apprehending the object to be inherently existent, be it with regard to a person or phenomenon, you don’t attain liberation.

From this discussion, you can see we can know how important it is to analyseis and reflect because you we have to arrive at an ascertainment through such analysis and reflection. Once you have reached anthe ascertainment in your mind, heart “This is the conclusion!”, then you will never forget it.

The difference in the assertions of what constitutes an obstruction to liberation and an obstruction to omniscience basically comes from the interpretation of what ignorance actually is. Everyone accepts that the root of samsara and the thing that cause us to circle in samsara iis ignorance but they all have different views as to what ignorance is. Because of these differences, , it arise different positions arise.

All the Buddhist philosophical tenets agree are in accord by saying that the apprehension of the self of persons is the root of cyclic existence. Having said that, they differ as to what is an apprehension of the self of persons is.

According to the CMWS, for them, the mind, when apprehending a person, takes the self or , the “‘I’” , person as the object and view that self of persons to be exist ing by way of its own character, i.e., or existing inherently. That mind is called the apprehension of the self of persons and that is asserted to be the root of all the problems and the root of samsara.

The CMWS also asserts that the mind, when focusing es on phenomena other than the person, sees those phenomena as existing exist by way of their its own character, / existing inherently. This is also is the the cause of samsara. Therefore, it also needs to be abandoned.

In terms of the object of negation - inherent existence -– it is they are the same whether one is apprehending the self of persons or apprehending the self of phenomena. The object that we are negating here- inherently existence- is the same.

If you were to be asked: w What is that accounts for the different views regarding the two different obstructions – the obstruction to liberation and the obstruction to omniscience, ? tThere are many views which see these two in the different ways. What is the root of samsara? Because there are differences in the interpretation as to what constitutes ignorance, which is the root of samsara, therefore we have all these different positions arise.

What then is the answer that gets directly to the point for the question I asked earlier? The question is: The AMWS asserts that the apprehension of the self of phenomena is an obstruction to omniscience whereas the CMWS assert that it is an obstruction to liberation. What is the reason for this difference?

The short answer will be this but it gets to the point: The difference comes in their interpretations as to what constitutes the root of samsara, ignorance.

.

For those of you who have been studying and thinking about this topic, then this answer will make sense to you. It really goes to the point. But for those of you who do not have this understanding, then this short answer is completely meaningless.

The AMWS assert that the apprehension of the self of phenomena is an obstruction to omniscience whereas the CMWS assert that it is an obstruction to liberation. Why is the reason for the difference?

The difference comes from their own interpretation as what constitute the root of samsara –ignorance.

The reason why I bring up out some of these questions in class is to encourage you all to think about them.

According to the highestr school, the apprehension of the self of persons is the root of samsara and the apprehension of the self of phenomena is also the root of samsara. ? Then, what about the view of the transitory collection? I, it is also the root of samsara. Then Iit follows then that there are three roots of samsara?

Student: These three apprehensions have the same mode of apprehension. (They all) –apprehend the inherently existence (of the object).

Geshe-la: This show is a the sign that he has read the text. Actually Tthe answers to all my questions are in the text.

It is mentioned in the teachings that there is only one door to liberation and . Basically it says that there is one root of samsara. If you want to talk about number, then Tthere are numberless instances of ignorance which are of a similar type but, nevertheless, their mode of apprehending the object is the same.

According to the AMWS, they assert that the apprehension of the self of persons is the root of samsara. One can achieve liberation simply Just by abandoning that. we can achieve liberation. If whatever they assert to be the apprehension of the self of phenomena is also asserted also to be the root of samsara, then they will incur the fallacy of having two different modes of apprehension which constituting e the roots of samsara. Because

Aaccording to the AMWS, since what what constitutes the root of samsara is the apprehension of the self of persons, i. If you want to achieve liberation, you only just have to eradicate this e apprehension of the self of persons. You do not n’t have to eradicate the apprehension of the self of phenomena to achieve liberation. But iIf you want to achieve omniscience (enlightenment), then you also have to also overcome the apprehension of the self of phenomena. Because of this, according to the AMWS, therefore therefore you have to posit a difference in the object of negation.

HoHow does one we delineate the view of selflessness? The first thing to settle in one’s our mind is how the “‘I”’ or self is not inherently existent. If you we do not n’t see the emptiness of the “‘I”’ – how the “‘I”’ does not n’t exist inherently - then you we cannot be liberated.

First, you we have to delineate the view of selflessness of persons. How do you do this? It is through the

How do we delineate the selflessness of person? It is the analysis through using the four essential points:

i) The essential point of ascertaining the object of negation

ii) The essential point of ascertaining the pervasion

iii) The essential point to see the faults in claiming that the person and the aggregates are of one essence, established through their own nature

iv) The essential point to clearly see the points invalidating the position that the person and the aggregates are established as essentially distinct

The first essential point (of ascertaining the object of negation) is extremely important. If you we do not n’t understand the first essential point well in our experience, even when you we think about the other three essential points, you we will not get anya ggood understanding of them.

The object of negation is inherent existence (true existence). When If related to the persons, it refers to isthe inherently existent person. When If related to phenomenaon, it refers to is the inherently existent phenomena. The very first thing in trying that we try to refute the object of negation is this: if it is truly e existentce or inherently existentce, what exactly is inherent existence or true existence is?

Inherent existence means not relying on other factors such as no reliance on parts or , no reliance on the mind labelling things, i.e., there is completely no reliance whatsoever. You have to understand the meaning and the implications and the meaning of these words.

According to the CMWS, truely existence, inherent existence, existing from their own side - , all these terms mean the same thing. What does the words tell us? They It imply ies that they it are is able to stand on their its own and do not n’t have to rely on others. It is able to be right there, from on its own side. The CWMS says that there isn’t such a thing that is truly e existent, inherently existent or , existing from their own side. Essentially they are saying that Tthere is nothing out there in the world that can exist without depending on others. If something is truly existent, inherently existent or existing from its their own side, then it should be able to exist right there without depending on any other factor.

Then Yyou have to look at reality. Is reality this wayas such? When If you look at reality, you find that things and events are , whatever you are looking at, is in fact dependent on other things. So you Then we cannot say that they are truly existentce, inherently existentce or , existing from their own side.

A lot of people don’t seem to understand these words. They may get the words but they don’t understand the implications. It is very important to gain an understanding of these words.

What does it means - by truly existentce, inherently existentce, existing from their own side? When If you just look at the phrase, : ‘existentce from its own side,’ it the phrase tells you that that very thing should be able to exist from its own side, independent of any other thing.

What The thing that we are trying to find out is this: I: is there such a thing as a person, a self who existsing right there from its own side, existing inherently? Is there such a thing exist right there from its own side/ inherent existent? Is there a person existing from its own side? Are there things that are inherent existent?

LLet’s look at your own experience. When youwe look at yourselfves or at things around you, when we look at other things. Hhow do they appear back to your mind? Everything, including yourselfves, appearss to be real, existing from its own side, inherently and truly existent, truly existent. This is what appears to youus. On top of that, you we completely believe that things are like that. The mind which that believes this that is called ignorance.

YoOur job is to find out: “Do things and events including myself ourselves actually exist in the way I we believe them to exist? Things and events including ourselves appear back to us as existing from their own side, completely independent of other factors and we believe things exist in such a way. Our job is to find out whether we ourselves and everything do exist in the way we believe them to exist.

Let’s us look at the self or the “‘I.”’. It appears to you us as real and youwe believe it to be as real, truly existent and existing from its own side. But you we have to check whether your belief is correct or not. How do you we check? You We can use the analysis of the four essential points.

After we having e identified this truly existent person from your in our own experience, then you we analysze: “If I really exist truly/inherently, then there are two possibilities for the “I” it to exist. ; no other way out. It is that I am either one with my aggregates or I am completely different from my aggregates.”.

After you Hhaving e ascertained that, then you then check, “Is the “‘I”’ inherently one with my aggregates?” When you check in this way, then you will find all the logical problems. I; it is impossible!

Similarly, wwhen you check, “Is the “‘I”’ inherently different from the aggregates?” i It cannot withstand the analysis.

You will then come to the conclusion that the “‘I”’ does not exist inherently.

If the “‘I”’ exists inherently, it has to be either one with the body and mind or different from the body and mind. There is no other option. way out.

What is the problem when you if we think that the “‘I”’ is one with your body and mind? The problem is that everything will be one. T, there will be no differendifferentiation. t. This is nonsense.

But iIf the inherently existent “‘I”’ is different from the aggregates, then that will mean the “‘I”’ has no relationship or no connection whatsoever with the body and mind. This is also nonsense.

In further Aanalysing furthers, there are three fallacies if you we say the “‘I”’ is inherently oone with the aggregates:.

If the ‘I’ is inherently one with the body and mind, then there are three fallacies:

1. It will be pointless to assert a self

2. One will have to assert many selves, i.e., . iIf the “‘I”’ is one with the body and mind, just as there are so many different types of minds and different aggregates, then there will many “‘Is”’s which is not possible.

3. The inherently existent self will undergo production and disintegration. There are three implications to this fallacy:

On the third fallacy, if the inherently self will undergo production and disintegration, there are three implications:

• Memory of past lives will not be possible.

• Whatever action one has done will be wasted and will not bear any result.

• One will meet with the result of actions one did not commit.

*************

Whatever I have just brought up has been covered before , we have covered these in class. We do not have time to go through all this again. ese. SSo you we have to look at the text and think about it. As for now, it is difficult for us to come out with the answer immediately. For example, can you explain why is there the is a fallacy of it being pointless to talk about the “‘I”’? Why is there is a fallacy of the self having s to undergo production and disintegration?.

I understand this is a challenging text but nevertheless, you have to read the text and think about it and also discuss it. If there is any thing that you are not sure about, , yyou can bring it up out in class and ask.

In the text, first there is the a ddelineation of the view of the selflessness of person, i.e., – delineating the “‘I”’ or person as not inherently existent. Then there is delineating “‘mine”’ asas not as iinherently existent.

After delineating the “‘I”’ and “‘mine”’ as not inherently existent, the text explains that while the “‘I”’ and “‘mine”’ are not inherently existent, it does not mean that they it does not exist at all. Conventionally, they exist and function. In this context, the illusory-like appearance then comes into the discussion where . When we talk about an illusory-liked appearance, we are trying to understand how things exist while they are empty.

Translated by Ven. Tenzin Gyurme

Transcribed by Phuah Soon Ek and Vivien Ng

Edited by Cecilia Tsong

Checked by Shirley SohYap Siew Kee

.

-----------------------

[1] The fFirst two minutes of the teachings were inadvertently not recorded.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download