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！
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 so forth for the time being） – then human beings exist； you exist； I exist； there is somebody who creates causes； there is somebody who experiences results because there is the karmic law which we have gone through earlier on。 So in that way there is an ‘I’； there is a self who is creating causes； who is experiencing results； and then there is something which goes from this life to the future life。 So that self exists； also we know this because we see other individuals with our eyes。 If we were to say that self or human being； being mere elaborations on the same meaning； that they don’t exist； then what are we seeing when we see other human beings with our eyes？ So that self exists； exists in a conventional way； exists in a nominal way。
Then when we talk about ‘selflessness’ or ‘I…lessness’； what is this 'I' which is being spoken about？ Here； what we are talking about is a lack of autonomous existence； because human beings exist as designations upon the five aggregates； that is to say； the aggregates of body and then the various kinds of mind。 So on this basis then； an ‘I’ is imputed。 And that ‘I’ then if grasped as anything else； as anything other than an imputation upon these five aggregates； seen as being something other than them； as existing solidly from its own side； that 'I'； that feeling that we have； that feeling that something exists in and of itself is the ‘I’ or the self which is to be negated； thus we have selflessness or ‘I…lessness’。 So it is extremely important to make a distinction between these two different kinds of self or these two different kinds of ‘I’ – one existing nominally； the other one not existing ultimately and the view that that exists being thus the mistaken view； the one which we are trying to negate or remove through our contemplations upon thusness。
So it is extremely important then to understand clearly these two modes of existence； these two ‘I’s； or these two selves； which we experience because； as is mentioned in the Bodhisattva grounds； when we explain the actual mode of phenomena or the selflessness of people or persons； it is very easy to fall to the extreme that nothing exists at all … there is no person creating karma； there is nobody to experience the result of that karma； there is no 'I' used as a conventional term which is going between one existence and another existence。 When this is presented then we have to be extremely careful in making clear this distinction at the beginning because； as the Bodhisattva grounds mentions； there is every danger that the listener； the person who is being instructed； might fall to the extreme that because we are taught selflessness； that self refers to us； ourselves – then there is nobody to create karma； there is nobody to experience the results； there is no past and future lives； and they fall into this extreme wrong view that there is no karma and no continuation from this life to a future life。
So one has to be extremely clear then with regard to this presentation of how the self exists； and what is m