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！
that then the whole of Samsara for that individual bees something which is withered and then finally non…existent。
So then we need to continually familiarise ourselves using reasons。 Once we have established those reasons we can meditate upon the ultimate nature； or the lack of autonomous existence； of phenomena … this then is something which we need to prove to ourselves using the various reasonings。 For example； when we start to contemplate； we need to have an understanding and then slowly get into the understanding of the nature； or the actual mode of existence； of phenomena。 Then when we start to have queries about that； we can remove those using the various reasonings。 For example； if something has autonomous existence then it cannot be something which arises in dependence upon something else because it’s autonomously existing。 Another example we could use is that if it is a functioning thing； if it has natural or self…existence then it is not something which is brought about by a cause and an effect … 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； o