宗喀巴_三主要道英文版及解释-第19部分

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！


t　…　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；　or　those　for　whom　the　munist　party　holds　a　great　sway；　then　for　them；　Mao　Tse…tung　is　like　their　hero；　somebody　who　is　almost　worshipped　by　them。　So　we　can　say　that　'friend'　and　'enemy'　are　opposites；　there　is　nothing　which　is　both　of　them。　However；　if　we　look　from　different　perspectives　then　we　can　see　that　one　individual　can　exist　at　the　same　time　as　both　somebody's　friend　and　somebody's　enemy。　So　from　one　side　then；　the　name　'enemy'　is　applied　and　from　another　angle　the　name　'friend'　is　applied　to　the　same　object。　This　is　another　opening　into　the　perception　that　there　is　no　object　which　exists　in　and　of　itself；　rather　it　is　just　a　mere　imputation　from　the　side　of　another。

So　then　let　us　take　the　example　of　an　individual　called　'John'。　So　let's　say　this　character　has　a　son；　and　has　a　brother　and　a　wife　and　so　forth。　So　then　this　person　'John'　from　his　father's　side　is　a　son；　and　from　his　own　child's　side　is　a　father；　from　his　wife's　relations'　side　he　is　an　uncle　and　from　his　own　relations'　side　he　is　a　brother　and　so　forth。　So　then　if　this　individual　'John'　was　one　who　existed　as　a　son　in　and　of　himself；　then　even　his　own　son；　his　own　relatives；　his　wife's　relatives　would　all　have　to　view　him　as　such　because　he　is　naturally　existing；　or　existing　from　his　own　side；　as　a　son。　And　the　same　looking　at　it　from　the　child's　perspective　…　seeing　John　as　a　father　…　if　he　was　naturally　existing　as　a　father　then　all　those　other　beings　（his　father；　his　uncles；　his　relations）　would　all　view　him　as　'father'；　so　again　this　is　something　which　is　absurd。　So　through　looking　at　other　people's　perspectives　we　can　see　how　the　labelling　process　provides　us　with　a　person　existing　in　such　a　way；　whether　it　be　as　a　son；　whether　it　be　as　a　father；　uncle　and　so　forth。　If　we　look　at　a　woman　…　for　example　the　woman　has　a　child；　so　from　the　child's　point　of　view；　the　woman　is　a　mother；　but　from　her　mother's　own　point　of　view　she　is　a　daughter；　and　then　from　her　relatives'　point　of　view；　she　is　a　sister　or　an　auntie。　So　with　regard　this　woman；　she　is　being　seen　in　four　pletely　different　ways。　If　she　were　naturally　or　autonomously　a　mother　then　everyone　should　see　her　as　such；　if　she　were　autonomously　a　daughter；　again　everyone　should　see　her　as　such。　But　that　doesn't　occur；　and　the　reason　for　that　is　because　she　doesn't　exist　naturally　or　inherently　as　any　of　those　things　but　rather　from　the　perspective　of　the　mother；　the　child；　the　relative　and　so　forth　she　is　merely　designated　as　mother；　auntie；　and　so　forth。

Establishing　a　phenomenon　in　dependence　on　its　parts

So　then　we　can　look　at　a　quotation　from　the　sutra　which　says　that　just　as　a　chariot　es　into　existence　in　dependence　upon　its　parts　and　the　labelling　process；　in　such　a　way　a　human　being　is　also　known。　So　here　when　we　talk　about　'a　chariot'　we　might　have　some　idea　of　what　a　chariot　is；　but　we　have　to　remember　that　this　was　some　years　ago　when　the　Buddha　gave　this　sutra；　so　nowadays　a　modern　interpretation　might　be　'a　car'。　So　then　if　we　take　'car'　as　the　starting　point　then：　A　c