宗喀巴_三主要道英文版及解释-第16部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！

ntation　of　the　various　grounds　and　paths。　With　regard　to　the　paths　then；　the　Prasangika　Madhyamika　view　holds　that　the　practitioners　of　the　hearer　and　the　Solitary　Realiser　lineages　cognise　the　emptiness；　or　the　lack　of　autonomous　existence；　of　phenomena；　and　through　that　they　achieve　the　lesser　nirvana。　The　other　philosophical　schools；　for　example；　Svatantrika　Madhyamika；　the　Mind　Only　school　and　so　forth；　they　say　that　these　persons　（that　is　those　of　the　lesser　vehicles　lineages）　do　not　cognise　the　emptiness　of　phenomena；　and　because　of　that；　they　don't　achieve　nirvana。　However　it　is　difficult　to　assert　that；　so　what　we　have　to　put　forward　is　that　the　practitioners　of　these　lesser　vehicles；　cognise　the　actual　mode　of　phenomena；　or　the　emptiness　of　phenomena；　and　from　that　viewpoint；　we　will　proceed　with　the　presentation　of　the　Prasangika　Madhyamika　view。

So　here　what　we　are　presenting　is　a　view　of　phenomena；　or　what　is　known　as　the　ultimate　mode　of　abiding　of　phenomena；　that　is　to　say；　the　mode　of　abiding　or　the　way　of　abiding　of　phenomena　at　its　utmost　peak。　The　reason　for　talking　about　the　mode　of　phenomena　is　that　the　underlying　way　of　existence　of　all　phenomena；　whether　animate　or　inanimate　…　their　final　mode　of　existence　is　what　is　going　to　be　presented　here。　This　mode　of　phenomena　is　what　is　meant　when　we　talk　about　various　classifications　of　teachings　by　the　Enlightened　One。　We　can　classify　the　various　sutras　as　belonging　to　two　different　categories；　that　is　to　say；　the　sutras　of　definitive　and　then　interpretative　meanings。　So　here　then　if　we　look　at　two　different　kinds　of　sutra　then；　for　example　the　sutra　which　teaches　us　that　all　posite　phenomena　are　impermanent；　then　if　we　look　at　the　mode　of　abiding　of　phenomena　we　do　see　that　if　they　are　posite；　then　they　are　momentarily　disintegrating。　This　is　in　one　level　the　mode　of　that　phenomena　…　that　they　are　momentarily　disintegrating。　However　there　is　something　that　through　further　analysis　will　e　to　light；　and　that　is　that　the　objects　in　and　of　themselves　…　albeit　an　impermanent　object　or　momentarily　disintegrating　object　…　those　objects　are　themselves　empty　of　any　kind　of　autonomous　existence；　that　is　to　say；　empty　of　any　kind　of　existence　from　their　own　side。　So　this　then　is　what　is　meant　by　'final'　with　regard　to　'final　mode　of　existence'。　The　'final'　here　then　refers　to　the　ultimate　or　the　empty　nature　of　phenomena。

If　you　have　some　doubt　about　that　we　can　clarify　it　by　quoting　another　sutra　which　says　that　one　must　kill　one's　mother　and　father。　So　then　we　have　to　explain　what　is　meant　by　'killing　one's　father　and　mother'　here　by　looking　at　the　twelve　links　of　dependent　origination。　So　within　those　twelve；　we　find　that　the　third　and　the　ninth　then　are　talking　about　various　kinds　of　karma；　so　what　is　meant　by　'to　kill　one's　father　and　mother'　is　to　kill　these　two　types　of　karma；　because　Buddha　has　on　numerous　occasions　made　clear　that；　for　a　follower　of　the　Buddha；　killing　is　pletely　out　of　the　question。　So　we　need　to　clarify；　we　need　to　interpret；　the　meaning　of　those　sutras。　Whereas　the　sutras　which　present　the　actual　mode　of　phenomena；　that　is　to　say；　the　empty　nature　of　phenomena；　those　particular　sutras　don't　need　any　interpretation　because　if　we　look　at　what　they　are　presenting；　there　is　nothing　else　to　be　found　within　that；　that　is　to　say；　they　are　presenting　the　final　nature　or　the　final　mode　of　existence　of　both　animate　and　inanimate　phenomena。　So　it　is　from　that　point　of　view　that　we　are　going　to　look　at　the　actual　nature　of　phenomena；　look　at　its　antithesis；　that　is　to　say；　the　ignorance　which　is　the　cause　of　the　cycle　of　existence；　that　is　to　say；　the　ignorance　which　is　confused　about　that　nature　of　existence　and　through　its　confusion　grasps　onto　the　actual　reverse　of　that；　that　is　to　say；　grasps　onto　self…　or　autonomous　existence。　So　the　antithesis　is　what　we　are　going　to　study　today　and　going　back　to　the　root　text　then；　it　says：

　　　　Although　you　practice　renunciation　and　Bodhi　mind；
　　　　Without　wisdom；　the　realisation　of　voidness；　you　cannot　cut　the　root　of　Samsara。
　　　　Therefore　strive　to　understand　dependent　origination　（or　dependent　arising）。　

So　here　then　it's　quite　clear：　Even　though　one　practices　renunciation　and　the　mind　aspiring　to　the　highest　enlightenment　for　the　benefit　of　all　sentient　beings；　without　this　wisdom　which　cognises　the　final　mode　of　phenomena；　that　is　to　say；　the　empty　nature　of　phenomena；　one　cannot　uproot　the　cause　of　the　cycle　of　existence；　and　therefore　one　cannot　be　free　from　the　fetters　of　Samsara。　So　therefore　it's　extremely　important　then　to　search　out　this　final；　or　ultimate；　mode　of　existence　of　phenomena。

So　therefore　we　are　encouraged　to　engage　in　the　practice　of　trying　to　understand　dependent　origination；　or　dependent　arising；　because　it　is　through　applying　the　sign　of　dependent　arising；　that　is　to　say　…　setting　up　a　syllogism；　for　example；　the　subject　…　a　sprout　…　is　empty　of　inherent　existence　because　it　is　dependent　arising。　Understanding　what　is　meant　by　dependent　arising；　and　then　through　that　understanding　we　can　e　to　understand　what　is　meant　by　the　lack　of　a　true　or　autonomous　existence；　what　is　meant　by　'emptiness'。　So　all　these　different　words　we　keep　hearing　…　'final　mode　of　phenomena'；　'emptiness'；　'suchness'　and　so　forth　…　these　are　all　just　mere　enumerations　on　the　same　meaning　which　is　that　phenomena　lack　any　kind　of　autonomous　existence。　We　are　encouraged　then　to　understand　what　is　meant　by　dependent　origination；　or　dependent　arising；　then　to　set　that　as　the　sign　by　means　of　which　we　can　prove　the　thesis　that　phenomena　are　lacking　in　any　autonomous　existence。

Dependent　arising

So　then　dependent　arising　is　the　reason　which　is　going　to　be　utilised　in　proving　that　phenomena　lack　any　kind　of　autonomous　or　true　existence。　So　then　to　utilise　this；　we　have　to；　as　we　mentioned　earlier；　set　up　the　syllogism。　So　for　example　what　we　are　going　to　prove　…　the　thesis　…　is　that　phenomena　are　lacking　in　true　existence。　So　here　then　we　have　to　understand　what　is　being　negated；　or　the　object　of　negation；　that　is　to　say；　true　existence；　because　if　we　don’t　have　a　clear　understanding　of　what　is　to　be　negated　then　there　is　every　chance　that　we　might　negate　too　much　and　fall　to　the　extreme　that　nothing　exists　whatsoever；　or　if　we　leave　too　much　behind　then　we　might　fall　into　the　extreme　of　permanence。　So　then　in　order　to　avoid　these　two　extremes；　of　true　existence　and　non…existence；　or　permanence　and　annihilation；　it’s　very　important　that　we　understand　exactly　what　is　mean　by　true　existence　and　exactly　what　is　meant　by　its　antithesis；　that　is　to　say；　the　lack　of　true　existence。

So　then　this　is　going　to　be　proved　through　utilising　the　reasoning　of　dependent　arising；　and　then　through　setting　that　sign；　we　are　able　then　to　cut　this　mistaken　view。　So　this　syllogism　that　we’re　setting　up　then　…　you　may　wonder：　well；　is　this　the　actual　mode　of　phenomena；　is　this　the　actual　lack　of　true　existence　or　not？　So　this　is　clearly　stated　to　not　be　the　actual　mode　of　existence　but　rather　is　a　convention；　a　convention　which　will　then　lead　us　to　the　ultimate　understanding；　that　is　to　say；　lead　us　to　understand　the　mode　in　which　phenomena　actually　exist。　This　is　clearly　mentioned　by　Chandrakirti　in　one　of　his　works　where　he　says　that　utilising　the　convention　is　the　method　to　get　to　the　ultimate。　So　here　then　’method’　is　referring　to　the　setting　up　of　that　syllogism；　having　the　basis　upon　which　one　is　going　to　prove　emptiness；　then　having　the　idea　of　the　thesis　that　something　is　empty　of　some　kind　of　autonomous　or　true　existence；　and　then　having　the　reason　to　prove　that。

So　these　are　all　within　the　realm　of　conventionality　and　are　used　as　a　method　to　generate　the　ultimate。　The　ultimate　here；　as　the　text　goes　on　to　explain；　is　the　subject　which　the　superiors　meditate　upon。　So　the　superiors'　meditative　equipoise　is　a　single…pointed　concentration　upon　the　ultimate　nature　of　phenomena。　Being　such　then；　it　continually　dwells　on　the　empty　nature；　or　the　final　mode　of　existence；　of　phenomena；　the　true　existence；　lacking　any　autonomy。　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