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！
ntation of the various grounds and paths。 With regard to the paths then； the Prasangika Madhyamika view holds that the practitioners of the hearer and the Solitary Realiser lineages cognise the emptiness； or the lack of autonomous existence； of phenomena； and through that they achieve the lesser nirvana。 The other philosophical schools； for example； Svatantrika Madhyamika； the Mind Only school and so forth； they say that these persons （that is those of the lesser vehicles lineages） do not cognise the emptiness of phenomena； and because of that； they don't achieve nirvana。 However it is difficult to assert that； so what we have to put forward is that the practitioners of these lesser vehicles； cognise the actual mode of phenomena； or the emptiness of phenomena； and from that viewpoint； we will proceed with the presentation of the Prasangika Madhyamika view。
So here what we are presenting is a view of phenomena； or what is known as the ultimate mode of abiding of phenomena； that is to say； the mode of abiding or the way of abiding of phenomena at its utmost peak。 The reason for talking about the mode of phenomena is that the underlying way of existence of all phenomena； whether animate or inanimate … their final mode of existence is what is going to be presented here。 This mode of phenomena is what is meant when we talk about various classifications of teachings by the Enlightened One。 We can classify the various sutras as belonging to two different categories； that is to say； the sutras of definitive and then interpretative meanings。 So here then if we look at two different kinds of sutra then； for example the sutra which teaches us that all posite phenomena are impermanent； then if we look at the mode of abiding of phenomena we do see that if they are posite； then they are momentarily disintegrating。 This is in one level the mode of that phenomena … that they are momentarily disintegrating。 However there is something that through further analysis will e to light； and that is that the objects in and of themselves … albeit an impermanent object or momentarily disintegrating object … those objects are themselves empty of any kind of autonomous existence； that is to say； empty of any kind of existence from their own side。 So this then is what is meant by 'final' with regard to 'final mode of existence'。 The 'final' here then refers to the ultimate or the empty nature of phenomena。
If you have some doubt about that we can clarify it by quoting another sutra which says that one must kill one's mother and father。 So then we have to explain what is meant by 'killing one's father and mother' here by looking at the twelve links of dependent origination。 So within those twelve； we find that the third and the ninth then are talking about various kinds of karma； so what is meant by 'to kill one's father and mother' is to kill these two types of karma； because Buddha has on numerous occasions made clear that； for a follower of the Buddha； killing is pletely out of the question。 So we need to clarify； we need to interpret； the meaning of those sutras。 Whereas the sutras which present the actual mode of phenomena； that is to say； the empty nature of phenomena； those particular sutras don't need any interpretation because if we look at what they are presenting； there is nothing else to be found within that； that is to say； they are presenting the final nature or the final mode of existence of both animate and inanimate phenomena。 So it is from that point of view that we are going to look at the actual nature of phenomena； look at its antithesis； that is to say； the ignorance which is the cause of the cycle of existence； that is to say； the ignorance which is confused about that nature of existence and through its confusion grasps onto the actual reverse of that； that is to say； grasps onto self… or autonomous existence。 So the antithesis is what we are going to study today and going back to the root text then； it says：
Although you practice renunciation and Bodhi mind；
Without wisdom； the realisation of voidness； you cannot cut the root of Samsara。
Therefore strive to understand dependent origination （or dependent arising）。
So here then it's quite clear： Even though one practices renunciation and the mind aspiring to the highest enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings； without this wisdom which cognises the final mode of phenomena； that is to say； the empty nature of phenomena； one cannot uproot the cause of the cycle of existence； and therefore one cannot be free from the fetters of Samsara。 So therefore it's extremely important then to search out this final； or ultimate； mode of existence of phenomena。
So therefore we are encouraged to engage in the practice of trying to understand dependent origination； or dependent arising； because it is through applying the sign of dependent arising； that is to say … setting up a syllogism； for example； the subject … a sprout … is empty of inherent existence because it is dependent arising。 Understanding what is meant by dependent arising； and then through that 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