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！
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 car is made up of all its ponents； if we separate out its ponents； we don't find something that we can point to as 'car'。 For example if we were to point to the wheel and say 'this is the car'； or look at the exhaust and say 'this is the car' … this is something absurd。 So then when we put all the parts of the car together； we designate the name 'car' upon the certain formation of those parts and then that serves as the basis of designation of the label 'car'。
…five aggregates are not in and of themselves the self； we have to clarify this。 If we look at the five aggregates … is the self the form aggregate？ or the feeling aggregate？ … and so forth and right down to the point of having the aggregate of consciousness。 So here then the biggest doubt es with regard this aggregate of consciousness because the Svatantrika Madhyamika then say that this is the self； this is the autonomously existing self。 But the simple negation of that is that we don't talk about possessing something which is the 'I' in the way which we talk about possessing something which is a consciousness。 For example we can easily say 'my consciousness' or 'my mind' but we don't say 'my I'； do we？ So how can the thing which is the 'I' in and of itself； that is to say； the consciousness； be possessed by something which is other than it？ So that is what Rinpoche was saying … can you say 'my I' or 'my self'； not as in 'me； myself' but rather as in my … other than my … like a glass … 'my glass'； 'my self' kind of thing。 So is it possible to say that？ … and obviously that is not the case； and the antithesis then is that we can say with regard to consciousness； 'my mind' or 'my consciousness'； so that kind of negates the fact that the consciousness in and of itself is the possessor； or that is to say； the 'I'。
With regard objects then we've looked at a car； but let's look at something which is more accessible to us at the present moment … if we look at this building and in particular this hall which we are now gathered in： This hall exists； we are enjoying the Dharma teaching within this hall； but if we were to say 'Where is the hall？' … can we say that it is in the northern wall； the eastern wall； the southern wall； the western wall？ If it was； let's say； in the eastern wall … if we then look towards that wall； we could say 'this is the hall' and there would be something there which everybody would perceive as 'the hall'。 But if we investigate then； if we look at that wall； we find it is a posite of bricks and cement and wood and glass and so forth； there is nothing there screaming out 'hall' from its own side。
So through these kind of reasonings we can e to understand that the way phenomena exist is just as a mere verbal designation； or as a concept； a name which is applied by a conceptual mind or a thought。 So it is in dependence upon these reasonings that we can start to pass through the gateway into the correct understanding of emptiness or the correct understanding of the ultimate nature of phenomena。 But you have to understand that this is just the beginning … we are just introducing those initial reasonings； those initial contemplations as a means to inspire you to e to terms with； or try to understand； what is meant by 'the object of negation'； and then through that to try to get into the understanding of the way that phenomena actually exist。 Because if we were just to say … 'Well； we can't find a hall in this place； there is a hall but we can't find it … I've realised emptiness！' … then that would be something that is quite absurd because the realisation of emptiness is something extremely difficult。 A reason for that is that past masters； for example Dignaga； have set forth their various tenets； so we have the four tenets school system and so forth； so these are not idiots； these are individuals who knew what they were talking about。 So this is just an introduction to the lines of reasoning which will eventually； if one pursues them； lead one to a correct understanding。 It's not as if I've said 'this is emptiness and you've got to see this'；