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！
So one has to be extremely clear then with regard to this presentation of how the self exists； and what is meant by selflessness or I…lessness。 So one of the distinctions which is extremely important to make is one that is quite simple； but when we talk about seeing things or experiencing things； like we experience our self directly； we experience others through our eye…consciousness； now this valid cognition which we are using is then one which is correct with regard to the object which it entertains； or which it engages。 So if one is perceiving somebody else as being an object of one’s valid cognition； then that must be something which exists because the very differentiating point between existence and non…existence is whether the object can be cognised by valid cognition or not。 So as we see other individuals then； we are seeing them with a correct or valid cognition； therefore there must be some object existing there for us to see。 This is the nominally existent or the existing 'I'； then the ‘I’ which is to be negated is the emptiness of an autonomously existing 'I'； （ ‘autonomous’ here referring to not being part of the five aggregates but existing as something other than that）。 Through that contemplation then； the ignorance which grasps onto that is removed。
The object of negation
So then initially it’s incredibly important to understand what is meant by the object of negation。 When we talk about something lacking natural or true existence； autonomous existence； however we like to use that language； then we are getting down to the same point – something lacking any kind of existence from its own side。 So we have to understand then what is meant by ‘existing from its own side’ or ‘true existence’ and so forth。 So in order to do that； we have to understand this ignorance which grasps onto such phenomena in a mistaken way； and for that to happen； we have to understand the naturally arising or spontaneously produced mind which is grasping at true or self existence。 Through observing that； then we can e to see the way that this ignorance grasps onto its object； we can then e to see the actual nature of the object and the mistaken way which it is being grasped at by this naturally or spontaneously arising mind of ignorance。 So then when we talk about understanding the object of negation； if we look in the scriptures we can take a quotation from Shantideva’s Bodhicaryavatara which mentions … How without understanding true existence； can you talk about the lack of true existence？ So here it’s very clear isn’t it； if we want to understand what is meant by lack of true existence； then we have to understand initially true existence； that which is to be negated。
In a simpler to understand answer； if we talk about a house or a building； if someone were to e to us and say ‘Is Lodro in the house？’； then if we don’t know who Lodro is； we can’t possibly answer that person – we cannot say ‘yes’ or we cannot say ‘no’。 Even though we might say the word ‘Lodro’ a lot； it doesn’t really mean anything because we don’t understand the basis to which this word； or this name； is attached； or given。 So in the same way we may say ‘lack of self existence’ or ‘lack of autonomous existence’； and so forth； but unless we are really clear about what 'self existence' is or what 'autonomous existence' is then it just is a lot of play with words； we’re not really going to learn anything from that； and what is more； we’re not really going to be able to develop the wisdom which cognises this mode of abiding of phenomena。 So it is extremely important then initially for us beginners to contemplate upon this object of negation； that which is actually negated by its antithesis and the wisdom arising thereafter。 And for those of you who have already understood this then； there is not much point in me going on about； but for the majority of us beginners then it’s incredibly important to understand what is meant by the object of negation。
Two kinds of reasoning
So then in order to find the ultimate nature of phenomena we contemplate its antithesis … true existence or autonomous existence … and then we strive to understand what is meant by the opposite； that is to say selflessness； or lacking autonomous or self existence； and the way we do this … because this mode of phenomena is the kind of phenomena which is classified as a hidden phenomena； we have to rely upon a correct line of reasoning to draw out or to prove what we are trying to set forth； or our thesis。 In order to do this there are various kinds of reasoning we can set forth； but from within those we find that two are the best two。 So the first of these is the reasoning of 'the one and the many'； and the second one is the 'king of reasonings' then； the reasoning of dependent origination or dependent arising。
So from within these two then； it is said that the reasoning of the one and the many … from this we draw out the renowned fourfold analysis。 This is for beginners； the easiest way to settle or e to understand the ultimate nature； or the ultimate mode； of phenomena。 However then； when we look at the other reasoning … the 'king of reasonings'； that of dependent arising or dependent origination； this reasoning is one which is renowned as the king for what reason？ For the reason that the Mind Only school use this reasoning to prove true existence； whereas the Madhyamika school use this to prove non…true existence。 So everybody is ing down to this same point of dependent arising； and through this reason it is renowned as the 'king of reasons' or the king of correct signs； when set in a syllogism。
So as our text here principally deals with the reasoning of dependent arising； then we will follow this line reasoning （if we can go through the fourfold analysis； so much the better）； but if we just stick with the text then what we are going through is the reasoning of dependent origination or dependent arising； so let us then stick with that。 It is always better to use one line of reasoning because in dependence upon one line of reasoning one can e to understand the truth of the thesis； then as one has understood the truth of that thesis then there is no need to then entertain another reasoning to again prove that same thesis because one has already proved that to oneself。
So in order to set the syllogism then； if we lay it out using as the subject a sprout （we can actually use any kind of subject； for example a human being or whatever but let us just use the example which is given in the text； then the subject a sprout）。 So it’s very important that we understand that in order to set a thesis； we have to have a subject … a basis upon which we are going to discuss a natural or autonomous existence； because if we are just talking about having or lack of autonomous existence； we have to have something which we are going to look at； something which we are going to focus upon when we start to engage in this reasoning。 If we don’t have a basis of a discussion or argument； our argument is going to spiral out of control。
So here then we will look at the subject （in this case a sprout） and the thesis which is to be proven about that is its lacking autonomous exist