Transcript of the Teachings by Geshe Chonyi s1

Amitabha Buddhist Centre Lama Tsongkhapa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom

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: 48 Date:31st March 2011

B. Delineating the selflessness of phenomena

a. How there is no difference in subtlety among objects of negation, but rather a distinction between two selflessnesses on account of their subjects

b. How it is settled

1) Refutation through moving over the reasoning explained earlier

2) Refutation through another reasoning not explained earlier

a) Showing the reasoning of dependent-arising

i) Mentioning the source

ii) Explanation of what the sutra [quotation] means

iii) Praise to the argument of dependent origination as that which cuts all inferior views

iv) Identification of where the view goes wrong – the extremes of exaggeration and denigration

v) How the two extremes are overcome at the same time through the reasoning of dependent origination

vi) Presentation[s] of dependent origination

1' Presentation common to Cittamatrins

2' The Madhyamika's uncommon way of presenting dependent origination

vii) How truly established sameness and difference are also refuted by these [two arguments]

viii) Corresponding statements in Nagarjuna's writings

ix) The way it is praised as a view in which appearances and emptiness are seen to be complementary

x) Instruction that it is necessary to differentiate between inherent existence and non-existence and, generally, between the four types of existence and non-existence

1' The actual [advice]

2' How you fall to the two extremes if you do not differentiate between them along with a source

3' The manner in which those two extremes are eliminated

4' The mere extremes of existence and non-existence and the two extremes associated with the places where the view goes wrong do not have the same meaning

5' Sources for that

6' The distinction that through [the phrase] 'neither existent nor non-existent' and the like there is no falling to extremes, is a fixation on mere words

1' The actual [advice]

In order for such to happen, it is necessary to differentiate between:

· inherent existence and mere existence

· absence of existence by way of its [the object's] own character and non-existence (Page 93 of the root text) .

You need to differentiate between:

1) Inherent existence and existence

2) Inherent non-existence and non-existence

It is as Chandrakirti’s Commentary on the "Supplement to (Nagarjuna's) ‘Treatise on the Middle'" says:

While knowing even the presentation of causes and effects, which are reflections without inherent existence, what wise person would - through observing that forms, feelings, and so forth, which do not abide separately from causes and effects, are merely existent - ascertain them as having inherent existence? Therefore, although observed to exist, they have no inherently existent production (Page 93 of the root text).

The quotation from Chandrakirti’s Commentary on the “Supplement to (Nagarjuna’s) ‘Treatise on the Middle’” is saying that, while phenomena are not truly existent, nevertheless, they can be posited to be like a reflection. A reflection appears when the conditions come together, i.e., when there is a mirror and an object in front of it. When these two come together, there is the reflection of the object. Conventionally speaking, you can understand and posit this.

The “wise person” refers to the intelligent person.

Here, form is used as an example. The cause of form is not of a separate nature from form itself. The result of form is also not of a different nature from form itself, even while they are not inherently different. Whether it is the cause of form or the effect (or result) of form, the cause of form is not separate or of a different nature from form. Likewise, with the effect of form.

Although they are not inherently separate, the very fact that they exist will ensure that those two will not become inherently existent. That explains the meaning of “not abide separately from causes and effects.” I think it is all right to explain it in this way.

It is important to read and think about this. This is one of the reasons why I asked you to read and also why I did not explain the meaning of “not abide separately” straightaway. When you read and think about what you have read, then, when I explain the passage, at least you will be able to evaluate it in some way, thinking, “This explanation is all right” or “This explanation does not sound right to me.”

This is why I always say that it is very important to read the text and to think about the subject, especially if you want to know it well. If you have strong interest in this topic, then you should read and think about it. Even when you can’t figure out the answer, when you come to class and the explanation is given, due to your strong interest and desire to know the answer, you will really appreciate it when you hear the correct explanation. You will understand straightaway. That is the most important reason for attending the teachings.

It is like a very thirsty person in desperate need of water. When you are so thirsty and you meet someone who gives you water, obviously, you will appreciate that person very much. You will be able to understand the kindness of that person.

Similarly, when you have a very strong desire to learn, you will read and think about the subject. Even if you can’t figure things out straightaway, when you do finally get the answer and your qualms are resolved, there will be some impact on your mind.

It is the same for everything we do in our lives. Your interest in seeking out the Dharma should be like that of a very thirsty person looking for water. Having such an attitude towards seeking out the Dharma, when you get it, there will be a strong impact that benefits the mind. Otherwise, it is not so beneficial.

If you are not seeking the Dharma, then it is like forcing someone who doesn’t want to drink, to drink. If you don’t want to drink, then obviously there is no benefit in giving you buckets and buckets of water. You will not see the kindness of the person giving you water.

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

Geshe-la (in response to question from student): There is no need to go into such complications. It is as simple as this. Causes and effects are not inherently separate but they exist. They are mere existences. That mere fact itself will ensure that these two (cause and effect) will not become inherently existent.

In this context here, we are trying to explain the words, “not abide separately.” That is the explanation. It is not that you cannot talk about, let’s say, the imputed object and its bases of imputation but there is no need to go into that in this context.

Kamalashila's Illumination of the Middle says:

If in the middle there were any ultimate nature of inherent existence of the mind, then since it had that, how could even manifest adherences to "permanence" and "impermanence" with regard to it be extremes (anta)? It is not reasonable to say that proper mental application in accordance with the suchness of things is a situation of falling [to an extreme (anta)] (Page 94 of the root text). .

Geshe-la: Swee Kim, tell me the essence of what Kamalashila is saying in these two sentences.

Swee Kim: If the CMWS says that inherent existence does not exist, then how could there be any falling into permanence and impermanence? If you see existents to be merely labelled, then it is not a case of falling into an extreme because that is the correct way in which things exist.

Geshe-la: Good. Does anyone else have another understanding of this passage?

According to the Middle Way, if phenomena are truly existent, i.e., they exist truly, then apprehending phenomena to be truly existent will not be an apprehension of the extreme of permanence. Why is this so? Because you will be apprehending that object in the way it exists in reality. When you apprehend an object exactly in accordance with how it exists in reality, that apprehension will not be an apprehension of an extreme. You will not be falling into any extreme.

B. Delineating the selflessness of phenomena

a. How there is no difference in subtlety among objects of negation, but rather a distinction between two selflessnesses on account of their subjects

b. How it is settled

1) Refutation through moving over the reasoning explained earlier

2) Refutation through another reasoning not explained earlier

a) Showing the reasoning of dependent-arising

b) Establishing uncompounded phenomena also as not truly existent through the reasoning of dependent-arising and the former reasoning

i) Pointing out the intended meaning from the Root [Verses on] Wisdom that once products have been established through reasoning as not truly existent, non-products are easily established as not truly existent

ii) The reason for that

iii) How to refute the assertion that products such as reality and cessations are inherently truly existent by means of the reasoning of interdependence as well

iv) Another refutation by way of [their] not being one nor many

v) The assertions that with products the emptiness of inherently existing in their own right is a nihilistic emptiness and that suchness is established as truly existent are misguided with regard to emptiness

vi) If emptiness of an own essence thus meant that he himself were empty of [being] himself, it would also be inadmissible for someone such as the holder of the thesis that certain phenomena truly exist, to posit certain phenomena as truly existent, having been considered inherently empty himself

vii) The two, asserting that all phenomena lack true existence, a true existence that has been refuted through reasoning, and propounding that all phenomena lack true existence with a mistaken manner of understanding emptiness are by no means the same

viii) The doubt that if all non-products did not truly exist, this would be in contradiction with scriptures that teach nirvana to be

ix) The reply to this: although nirvana is non-deceptive to a mind looking at it with direct perception, it is not a truth that would bear analysis, so there is no contradiction with the above scriptural passage

x) Establishing the validity of that

xi) Although emptiness exists, it need not be truly established; that eliminates the [alleged] contradiction with the scriptural passage from Praise of the Dharmadhatu

xii) You cannot avert the apprehension of true existence by making a truly established reality your object of meditation

Thinking that when in this way compounded things—persons and other phenomena—have been established as not truly existent by way of the reasonings described earlier, it can be established with little difficulty that uncompounded phenomena such as space, analytical cessations, non-analytical cessations, thusness, and so forth are not truly existent, Nagarjuna says in the Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Called "Wisdom":

Since compounded phenomena are thoroughly not established,

How could the uncompounded be established? (Page 95 – 96 of the root text)

The selflessness of persons has been delineated earlier in the text, followed by the delineation of the selflessness of phenomena. In the delineation of the selflessness of phenomena, first, you analyse the category of compounded phenomena, such as the aggregates and so forth. You delineate their selflessness through the reasoning of one and different, and also the reasoning of dependent-arising.

The above extract is saying that once you have established, in your mind, that compounded phenomena are not inherently existent, you will then be able, with little difficulty, to do likewise with regard to the class of uncompounded phenomena. Some examples of uncompounded phenomena such as space, analytical cessations, non-analytical cessations and thusness are given.

Space refers to the non-implicative negation (or non-affirming negation) which is a mere absence of obstructive contact and not to the space you see in front of you.

An analytical cessation refers to an actual cessation. The state of abandonment of any of the afflictions through analysing the Four Noble Truths and then through the power of the wisdom realising emptiness is an actual cessation. In this context, it is called an analytical cessation.

In the Four Noble Truths, there is True Path and True Cessation. The True Path is the wisdom directly perceiving emptiness while True Cessation refers to the state of abandonment. What is that state of abandonment? It refers to the state where you free yourself from certain afflictions through that wisdom directly realising emptiness. Of the Four Noble Truths, True Cessation refers to that.