Commentary by Geshe Ngawang Dakpa

Transcription

1 FPMT BASIC PROGRAM THE HEART SUTRA Commentary by Geshe Ngawang Dakpa Tse Chen Ling, October 2001 interpreter Dr. Robert Clark transcript Ven. Lhundup Chodron edited by Olga Planken Geshe Ngawang Dakpa and Tse Chen Ling, 2004

2 Contents Introduction...3 The Three Dharmachakras...5 The Four Tenet Systems...10 Questions and Answers First set of Study Questions Answers to the first set of Study Questions The Prasangika Madhyamika view of emptiness...20 The History of the Prajnaparamita Sutras...24 The...26 The Meaning of the Title...26 Questions and Answers The Meaning of the Title (cont d)...29 The Explanation of the Body of the Sutra...31 The Prologue...31 The Common Prologue: the Four Excellences...31 The Unique Prologue...34 The Body of the Text...35 The Question by Shariputra...36 The Answer by Avalokiteshvara...38 Questions and Answers Second set of Study Questions Answers to the second set of Study Questions The Answer by Avalokiteshvara (cont d)...45 The Mantra...54 The Authentication...55 The Epilogue: the rejoicing and confirmation by the rest of the audience...56 Concluding Questions and Answers

3 COMMENTARY ON THE HEART SUTRA by Geshe Ngawang Dakpa Introduction Session 1 - Day 1 Tape 1a For all living beings, who are limitless as the skies, and who are our own kind mothers from the past, it is necessary to attain the state of the highest perfect enlightenment. In order to do this, one must first accomplish the study and practice of the dharma. Therefore, please listen to this teaching with the resolve and determination to understand it and put it into practice, and to carry it through to its ultimate goal. The teaching to be considered on this occasion is the Heart of Wisdom Sutra, known as the, and commentaries. Interpreter: Geshe-la says he has heard that there will be some examination presented at the conclusion of the two days of teachings, and so he would advise everyone to listen carefully and take copious notes, and then you will have no problem. The nature of this text is that it is a sutra, meaning that these are the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha himself. So what sort of a person is this Shakyamuni Buddha? We should give consideration to this since he is the source and author of these teachings. First of all Shakyamuni Buddha was someone who was very much like us in the beginning, someone looking for answers to the great questions. Early on he decided that the only way to answer the questions was to attain the state of highest perfect enlightenment. The basic question he had was how to resolve the problem of the misery of living beings. At the start of his career as a bodhisattva, that is, his career on the path that eventually led to his attaining the state of highest perfect enlightenment, was a particular incident. Due to some very bad karma he had taken rebirth in one of the hell realms and there he was employed pulling a plow through one of the infernal fields. He was hitched up together with someone else who had also fallen into the hell realms. The two of them were being forced to pull 3

4 this plow through the infernal fields. At that time he saw the tremendous suffering of his companion and there arose in his heart this very strong compassion to relieve his companion of his miseries. Later on, in a subsequent rebirth, he was born at the time of a buddha. That buddha s name was not Shakyamuni Buddha but rather the Great Shakyamuni. So the person who was later to become our Shakyamuni Buddha made an offering to the Great Shakyamuni. He offered him a clay pot filled with water and also a pair of shoes. At that point he made a prayer that by virtue of this offering may I attain the state of highest perfect enlightenment for the sake of all living beings. This is said to be the point of his actual generation of bodhicitta. From that moment on then he proceeded on this path to enlightenment and for three countless aeons he occupied himself in the collection of the two great assemblages of merit and wisdom. After three countless aeons of collecting merit and developing wisdom he proceeded to the highest pure land of Akanishta. There he attained the state of highest perfect enlightenment, i.e. he became a Buddha in Akanishta. This happened aeons ago. This is the Mahayana understanding of the progress of Shakyamuni Buddha s career. After attaining buddhahood in the Akanishta pure land some aeons went by and the time came to appear in this world and manifest buddhahood here. This was said to be the time of great strife. So Shakyamuni was born in the world of strife, a place where people contend with each other and harm each other. That was this world. There he carefully chose his place of rebirth. His father was King Suddhodana and his mother was Queen Maya, also known as Mayadevi. He was born (in Lumbini, and raised) in the capital city of their kingdom, which was known as Kapilavastu. There he was raised as the crown prince of the kingdom where he had his family, palace and everything else. At the age of around 30 he renounced it all, entered the forest and practiced meditation for six years. Then under the bodhi tree in Bodhgaya he manifested in this world the state of perfect enlightenment. He was 29 years old when he left the palace and entered into the forest for his meditations. From the time he was born until now is 2625 years. For about the next 50 years following his manifestation of enlightenment, he taught the dharma. He gave countless teachings during that time and all of these are understood as fitting into the three wheels, the three dharmachakras. 4

5 The Three Dharmachakras The first dharmachakra is called the dharmachakra of the four truths. The period of the teaching of the first dharmachakra of the four truths was 49 days. It was taught in a place near the present day Varanasi in a town called Sarnath. Within Sarnath the teaching occurred in a place called Deer Park. The city of Varanasi was so named because it is at the confluence of two rivers, called the Varuna and the Asi, which makes Varanasi. The place of the first turning is called Deer Park but its full name is Deer Park of the Falling Sages. The reason for this name is that for aeons before the first dharmachakra teaching the area was occupied by sages, particularly pratyekabuddhas. This is where they would go and do their activities, their practices. They occupied this area until they heard that the Buddha had come into the world and they said, we re not needed here anymore, so they flew up into the sky and tossed down all of their robes and accoutrements that they needed for living in that area. Since the sage s possessions all fell down from the sky it is called the Place of the Falling Sages, the Deer Park. This is how we can understand the nature of that special place near Varanasi at Deer Park where the sages dropped all of their things. So that is the nature of the place for the first turning. The first dharmachakra had what s called its primary intended disciples. These are those to whom the teaching was particularly aimed. These were of two types. Those who were of the Vaibhasika way of thinking and those who adhered to Sautrantika thought. These two, the Vaibhasikas and the Sautrantikas, constitute what is called the Hinayana schools of Buddhist thought. It was primarily for them that the teaching of the first dharmachakra was given. The central teaching of the first dharmachakra was the four truths; the truth of misery, the truth of cause, the truth of cessation and the truth of path. Because these are the primary topics of the first dharmachakra it is called the dharmachakra of the four truths. The second dharmachakra, which is also called the middle dharmachakra, is known as the dharmachakra that teaches the lack of intrinsic identifiability. So when did the Buddha teach the second dharmachakra, when was the teaching given? There is no consensus on exactly when the second dharmachakra teaching was given. Many authorities such as Kunkhyen Jamyang Shewa and Sera Je s Jetsunpa say that it was in the second year of his teachings, that is in the year after 5

6 manifesting enlightenment in Bodhgaya, that he began the second dharmachakra teachings. There are other traditions that say it was not until his 51 st year that the Lord Buddha taught the second dharmachakra. Still others say that it was in his 58 th year. In any case what is agreed upon is the place where it was given, that is near Rajagriha. The exact place was what is called Vulture s Peak. The primary intended disciples of the second dharmachakra were those who possess the Mahayana lineage or the Mahayana type person. Among the Mahayana type of disciples you have those who view things according to one or another of the two Mahayana schools of tenets. The second dharmachakra is primarily intended for those of the Madhyamika perspective, from among the Mahayana disciples. The central focus of the second dharmachakra is what is called the lack of true existence. You can also say the lack of things existing from their own side or by way of their own nature. Because of this it is called the teaching on the lack of intrinsic identifiability. The last teaching is the third dharmachakra, which is known as the dharmachakra of good discrimination. It s called the teaching of good discrimination because it discriminates well between the other teachings, i.e. whether things exist or don t exist. As for the time that this third dharmachakra was given, it is said to have been given subsequent to the teachings on the Prajnaparamita. The primary intended disciples of the third dharmachakra are certain disciples from both the Mahayana and Hinayana lineages. Although both Mahayana and Hinayana types are intended as primary disciples of the third dharmachakra, from among the four schools of tenets or the four philosophical perspectives of Buddhism, the primary disciples of the third dharmachakra are the Cittamatra. Of all the places where the third dharmachakra was given, the most famous place is Vaishali, known in Tibetan as Yangwachen. Again, the third dharmachakra is called the dharmachakra of good discrimination because it discriminates well between that which exists and that which does not. The way it does this is by establishing a framework of the three natures. The first of the three natures is called artificial nature, the second is called the dependent nature and the third is called the thoroughly established nature. According to the teachings of the third dharmachakra, the artificial nature does not truly exist. Everything that is within that category or defined by artificial nature does not truly exist. On the other hand, everything that is defined by dependent nature and 6

7 thoroughly established nature does truly exist. Because the teachings of the third dharmachakra are concerned with carefully discriminating between different modes of existence, it is called the wheel of good discrimination. Because of the disposition and perspectives of the primary intended disciples of the first dharmachakra the teachings given there present things as existing by way of their own nature. This is because that is the way in which the followers or the primary intended disciples of the first dharmachakra see things. Again, the primary disciples of the first dharmachakra are those whose perspective comes under the two tenet systems of the Hinayana, namely the Vaibhasikas and the Sautrantikas. Since the primary intended disciples of the second dharmachakra are those whose perspective is that of the Madhyamika, those teachings present all things as not existing by way of their own nature. (see Chart 1: The three dharmachakras). Noticing that it was the very same teacher that taught at one point that things do exist by way of their own nature and at another point that they do not exist by way of their own nature a certain disciple, called Bodhisattva Dondam Yangdagpa, was concerned. He was concerned because he understood that the teacher, Shakyamuni Buddha, was a fully enlightened being to whom nothing whatsoever is hidden and who speaks nothing but the truth. Therefore he was puzzled by this apparent contradiction where he taught sometimes that things do exist by way of their own nature and at other times that things do not exist by way of their own nature. So he said, well, there is an apparent contradiction, there must be some explanation, and so he asked the Lord Buddha, what is the meaning of this, how are we to reconcile this apparent contradiction? Then it was in answer to the Bodhisattva Dondam Yangdagpa that the Lord Buddha said, well, to resolve your struggle with this apparent contradiction, what you need is to be taught some hermeneutics; so what the Lord Buddha then did was to teach the dharmachakra of good discrimination, which really means a hermeneutic whereby you can resolve that some teachings are intended to be taken literally while others require some interpretation. The interpretation here comes by way of the presentation of the three natures, showing that some things do not exist by way of their own nature, some things do not exist by way of their own arising and some things do not exist in the ultimate sense, or in ultimate truth. So for those who find a contradiction there, the Lord Buddha then taught this way of discrimination, this hermeneutic, where he shows that you can understand that, that you can resolve the apparent contradiction by dividing all things into the three categories; again, of the artificial, the dependent, and the thoroughly established. And in this way you can see that some things do not exist by way of their own 7

8 nature, that is, they do not truly exist, and those things we call the artificial things, or things of an artificial nature, while those of a dependent nature and those of a thoroughly established nature do truly exist. How then does one apply this hermeneutic to the question at hand, namely that in the first dharmachakra the Lord Buddha taught that everything exists by way of its own nature, or that everything truly exists, and in the third dharmachakra we re told that some things, namely those of an artificial nature, do not exist by way of their own nature. The way that this apparent contradiction is resolved is by seeing that the teaching that all things exist by way of their own nature was given to those of the Vaibhasika and Sautrantika perspective, that is to say, those of the Hinayana perspective, since they could not understand it in a different way. In other words, by teaching according to their way of thinking they were brought to a higher level of understanding rather than teaching something that they just simply could not accept. So it was because of the needs of the primary intended disciples that the teachings were given that suggest that all things exist by way of their own nature. Just as in the first dharmachakra where all things were presented as existing by way of their own nature, even though they do not, because of the need to lead or guide those disciples, Tape 1b so too with the second dharmachakra. Again we have this teaching being given because of the needs of the intended disciples, namely those of the Madhyamika. In the context of the third dharmachakra, the third dharmachakra is saying that the teachings of all things existing by way of their own nature in the first dharmachakra are not to be taken literally but must be interpreted. The interpretation must be based on the needs of the intended disciples. Likewise the teachings in the second dharmachakra that nothing whatsoever exists by way of its own nature is not to be taken literally but must be interpreted, again, along the lines of the needs of the primary intended disciples. Then the third dharmachakra goes on to say that now, what I am saying here, can be taken literally, does not need interpretation, because it is the straight story, the straight truth, you can take it literally without interpreting. How are we to understand this? How are we to put it all together? We are seeing that in each case the Lord Buddha is giving teachings as a good physician dispenses medicine. In other words, he sees a need and he meets the need according to the individual. Just like the doctor looks at the individual particular needs of a patient and gives just the right treatment and medicine to that patient and not to others, 8

9 so the Lord Buddha gives these teachings. There is no case in which he is just giving teachings without any concern for the needs of the disciples, because the teaching is only given for the benefit of the disciples. There is no teaching that stands apart from that, where he says this is the way it is, period, without taking into account those who are listening to it. Every teaching is given according to the perspective, the needs and the proclivities of the disciples who are listening to it. Therefore, we have to look at the third dharmachakra and say who was this teaching intended for when the Lord Buddha said, ok, now you have the straight story, you have the literal truth here - who was he saying this to? He was saying it clearly to those of the Cittamatra perspective. Those of the Cittamatra perspective hold to these teachings of the third dharmachakra which say that the teachings of the first dharmachakra as well as those of the second dharmachakra are teachings requiring interpretation, and are not to be taken literally, whereas the teachings of the third dharmachakra are literal and require no interpretation, and can be taken according to the literal words. This is the viewpoint held by those of the Cittamatra perspective. This is what is meant by the hermeneutics in Buddhism; that we have ways to interpret the apparent discrepancies and contradictions within these three dharmachakras by saying that this particular teaching is to be taken literally whereas this other teaching must be interpreted. The way you decide which is literal teaching and which requires interpretation is the hermeneutic. The interpretation is always that this statement is not to be taken literally because it was given for such and such a purpose. And this other teaching is to be taken literally because it reflects the actual thought of the Buddha, the perspective of the enlightened one. So then, what is the hermeneutical perspective of the followers of the Madhyamika? That would be that the sutras of the first dharmachakra, those that focus primarily on the four truths, those are sutras that require interpretation. The sutras of the third dharmachakra that present the three natures are also sutras requiring interpretation. However, the sutras of the second wheel, the second dharmachakra that present the perspective of the lack of intrinsic identifiability are to be taken literally. And what are the primary sutras of the second dharmachakra? Those are the Prajnaparamita Sutras. Those are to be taken literally without further interpretation. Another way to understand this is that the first dharmachakra teaches things as truly existing or existing by way of their own nature and therefore cannot be taken literally. The second dharmachakra, and this again is all according to the Madhyamika perspective, teaches that nothing whatsoever exists by way of its own 9

10 nature or truly exists and so it can be taken literally. Then the third dharmachakra teaches that some things do exist by way of their own nature or truly exist, so those teachings require interpretation. The followers of the Vaibhasika and Sautrantika believe that everything that is taught by the Buddha is necessarily to be taken literally. They say all the sutras are sutras of literal meaning and none of them require any interpretation. So how do they manage that? They say that all the teachings of the Buddha are included within the first dharmachakra. They reject both the second and third dharmachakras as not being the teachings of the Buddha. This gives them a very easily applied hermeneutic by saying that all of the Mahayana sutras are not the word of the Buddha and therefore there s no need to interprete them, there is no need to seek any resolution to any contradiction because there s no contradiction once you say these are not the words of the Buddha. The Four Tenet Systems We have therefore the four philosophical perspectives of the followers of the Buddha. These are the so-called four tenet systems, the Vaibhasikas, Sautrantika, Cittamatra and Madhyamika.(see Chart 2: Buddhist schools of tenets) Among these the Vaibhasikas and Sautrantika exclusively follow the first dharmachakra. The Madhyamika schools are distinguished by their following in particular the second dharmachakra with its Prajnaparamita Sutras. The Madhyamikas follow particularly the Prajnaparamita Sutras because for them the Prajnaparamita Sutras follow the actual word of the Buddha. According to the Madhyamikas these sutras can be taken literally, whereas all the other sutras, while not rejecting them or saying that they are not the word of the Buddha, do require interpretation. The Cittamatrins follow in particular the third dharmachakra saying that those teachings are the sutras that can be taken literally while all the other sutras require interpretation. In general, how we understand or define a Buddhist as opposed to a non- Buddhist, the criterion used there is whether or not a person accepts or rejects the Three Jewels as being the valid refuge. Those that accept the Three Jewels as the valid refuge are Buddhists, those who do not are non-buddhist. We also have the four philosophical systems that establish a philosophical perspective as being Buddhist or non-buddhist. Whether a philosophical system is Buddhist or not is determined by the criterion of the acceptance or rejection of what are called the 10

11 four seals which certify a mode of thought to be correct according to the Buddha s teaching. A Buddhist philosophical system or tenet system is one that accepts the four seals and presents all of its logical arguments in accordance with those four seals. So what are the four seals? The first of the four seals is that all composite things are impermanent. The second is that all defiled things are misery. The third is that all phenomena are empty and selfless. The fourth is that nirvana is peace. If we look at the four Buddhist tenet systems and how they understand the four seals we can say broadly that they agree on the first two. There s no real difference in the coarseness or subtlety as far as understanding impermanence and misery and how all compounds are impermanent and all defiled things are misery. In the third of the four seals, that all phenomena are empty and selfless, the first aspect, that all phenomena are empty, is also agreed upon by all tenet systems. In particular what this means is that the self, that which accumulates karma and experiences its good and bad results, that self is empty of being permanent, partless and independent. This is what separates all of the Buddhist schools, all four tenet systems from the non-buddhist tenet systems that assert a self that they define as being permanent, partless and independent, this means a self that exists apart from the five skandhas. It is agreed by all four Buddhist tenet systems that no such self exists, no self that is permanent, partless and independent and that exists apart from the five aggregates. So we have here the case that there is an existent self and a non-existent self. The existent self is that which accumulates karma and experiences its good and bad effects. The non-existent self is a self that exists apart from the five skandhas, the five aggregates. That self does not exist. The self that does exist is the one that accumulates karma and experiences its results. This is agreed upon by all of the Buddhist schools. The non-existent self is that which is permanent, partless and independent. For all of the schools other than the Madhyamika, that is, for the Vaibhasika, the Sautrantika and Cittamatra, so for all schools except the Madhyamikas, what is called subtle selflessness is the non-existence of a self that is substantially existent and self-sufficient in relation to the five aggregates. In relation to means that its substance is not other than the five aggregates, it is not dependent upon them because it has its own self-sufficiency, its own substance, and its own means of influencing the five aggregates. The lack of such a self-sufficient, substantially existent self is said to be the subtle selflessness of persons by all the Buddhist tenet systems except for the Prasangika Madhyamika (and there is one exception among the Vaibhasika sub schools, one of them actually asserts that there is a self-sufficient, substantially existent self even though there is not one that is permanent, partless and independent). Among the Madhyamikas, it s the Prasangikas who do not accept this as the criteria of the 11

12 object of refutation of the subtle selflessness of persons; that is to say they do not agree that the subtle selflessness of persons is a person s lack of being a substantially existent self-sufficient entity. They say that that is the coarse selflessness of persons and that the subtle selflessness of persons is a person s lack of existing by way of its own nature. Among the Vaibhasikas there are 18 sub schools. Three of these, in particular what s called the Nasma i bupa, (I don t know what the Sanskrit is; it sort of means the Holders of the Self, something like that) they assert that this lack of the self being a substantially existent self-sufficient entity is not correct, that a selfsufficient, substantially existent self does exist. So they do not accept that as the subtle selflessness of persons. Not just the Nasma í bupas, several others of them in one way or another accept the existence of a self-sufficient, substantially existent self. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS If there are any questions, we can do these now and then give the study questions. Question: Why are there four different schools? What is the purpose of having these different perspectives? I understand that the Buddha understood who his audience was and therefore he teaches according to his audience. But it seems to me that it creates a lot of confusion having four different tenet systems. Answer: You have to look at this from the Buddha s perspective. Here he s confronting a situation where there is a wide range of different dispositions, abilities and thoughts. The disciples are so various in all these ways. If he taught from just one perspective he would not be helping very many people. It is for the purpose of helping so many that he taught in ways that were accessible to different people. Because of that there developed the four distinct systems of tenets, four perspectives in line with those differences. These different tenet systems really reflect the nature of the disciples. Because you have very different ways that people see reality, different ways that people experience reality, and if you do not teach in accordance with their experience and perspective then you do not reach them. So you can see that although there are four tenet systems there are many sub schools within each. Even within the Madhyamika you have the Prasangika and the Svatantrika. Then the Svatantrika has two further sub-divisions. This is in line with the way people see things and the way they can be led to higher and more subtle levels of understanding. When Buddhism came to Tibet the pure teachings of the 12

13 Mahayana came directly into Tibet. But once in Tibet you have different lineages; the Gelugpa and the Kagyu and the Nyingma and the Shakya are branching off by way of lineages, even though often the perspectives are very similar. In India we have the record of the debates among the 18 sub schools of the Vaibhasikas, literature on the debates. And even within one of the 18 sub schools you ll have marvelous and very contentious debates on various topics. Within the framework of the four Buddhist seals - all compounds are impermanent, all defiled things are misery, all phenomena are empty and selfless, and nirvana is peace so given those four seals, there are a great number of different perspectives one can have on those, interpretations of them. As long as none of the four seals are rejected one can still claim Buddhist orthodoxy; one is a Buddhist as long as you can in some way interpret those without throwing any of them out. These four tenet schools, the Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra and Madhyamika, along with their sub schools, present just about every conceivable way of interpreting those four seals. If you go outside of that, then you are no longer accepted. So we have only those four schools of tenets, because they are so comprehensive in the way they look at the four seals. Nowadays, if you look for representatives of these schools, then of course you can find the Vaibhasikas being the predominant school in southeast Asia, in Sri Lanka and so forth, and of the 18 sub schools of Vaibhasika the most popular one of course is the Theravada. And then, whether you can find or not find authentic representatives of the other seventeen, you d have to check and see what you can find, but the Theravada is very popular. The Sautrantika school, that s a different question, and something you d have to research, to find some Sautrantikas nowadays; maybe you can, maybe you can t. Tape 2a... whether you would find someone who is going to identify themselves authentically as being a proponent of the Sautrantika or not, that s certainly in question, whether you can find such a person, but as far as those who devote years and years to the study and understanding of Sautrantika, of course in Tibet this is very important and every geshe must devote years to studying the Sautrantika system. Question: Where does buddha nature fit in the four schools of tenets? Answer: The buddha nature, if it is tathagatagarbha, then that is something that is exclusive to the Madhyamikas. Sautrantikas and Vaibhasikas do not accept it. They assert what is called the arya nature, we d have to say, not the buddha nature; actually four different types of arya nature they assert, but no buddha nature. And then the Cittamatrins do not accept a buddha nature as such, they accept what is 13

14 called the naturally abiding nature, which is some type of latency that exists in the mind, a seed that exists in the mind. Madhyamikas accept that all living beings have this tathagatagarbha, this buddha nature, as part of their natural process. Question: You say that the teachings that are most effective for any given person vary by individual. How do we know we are taking teachings that are suitable for our own dispositions? Answer: What you re asking is that among all these teachings what is the one we can take literally as the definitive, authoritative teaching? That is what all this is about, why you have these different perspectives. According to the perspective from which this is being presented, it is the Madhyamika Prasangika that is the highest of all teachings. If you find that perspective to be something you can understand then you can just take that and benefit greatly from that. If you find you do not have any affinity for that teaching you look at the others and find one you feel most comfortable with. Then you study and learn that and you will get great benefit from it. Question: What is meant by self-sufficient with respect to the five aggregates? Answer: The usual understanding of the self, the existent self, that is the self that accumulates karma and experiences its result, is what is called designated, or posited, in relation to the five aggregates. So there is no self which exists independent of the five aggregates. What we call the self is just a designation given in reference to the five aggregates. So the thought that there exists a self which is independent of the five aggregates, which is substantially existent and self-sufficient with respect to the five aggregates, existing as some sort of a substance independent of the five aggregates, that is said to be a mistake, actually a wrong consciousness which apprehends that. No such self exists, no self that stands apart from and exists apart from the five aggregates. So that s the sense of there being no selfsufficient, substantially existent self. It s with respect to the five aggregates that it is not self-sufficient, it s not substantially existent in other words, merely a term that is posited or designated with respect to these five impermanent aggregates. 14

15 FIRST SET OF STUDY QUESTIONS Why don t we do the discussion questions first and then decide what to do with them. The first question is about the Lord Buddha, Shakyamuni. The question is when did Shakyamuni become a Buddha? Was it aeons ago in the highest pure land of Akanishta or did he newly attain buddhahood seated under the bodhi tree 2600 years ago in Bodhgaya? The second question: With regard to the first dharmachakra, where was it given? What was the primary focus of the teaching? Who were the primary intended disciples? The third question: The Prasangika Madhyamikas have a certain view regarding which of the sutras of the three dharmachakras are to be taken literally and which require interpretation. What is their view? The fourth question: Among the 18 sub schools of the Vaibhasikas there are some who say that there is in fact a self-sufficient, substantially existent self. Does this mean they reject one of the four Buddhist seals and as such are putting themselves outside the realm of Buddha s thought - does this mean they are no longer Buddhists, are not proponents of Buddhist tenets, if you say they are rejecting one of the four seals? Fifth question: From among the proponents of the four tenet systems which ones assert the subtle selflessness of persons as a person s lack of being a substantially existent selfsufficient entity? 15

16 Session 2 ANSWERS TO THE FIRST SET OF STUDY QUESTIONS Answer to the first question: When did Shakyamuni become a Buddha? Was it aeons ago in the highest pure land of Akanishta or did he newly attain buddhahood seated under the bodhi tree 2600 years ago in Bodhgaya? (...discussion of the way the different study groups answered the question...) We don t have time for a lot of discussion, so just to understand the different systems, the perspectives on this: the Vaibhasika and Sautrantika systems understand that the individual named Siddhartha was born to the king and queen of the kingdom as an ordinary being and that he then went through the process of renouncing the kingdom, going off, meditating for six years and then newly attained the state of enlightenment, buddhahood. And of the three bodies of the Buddha the Hinayana schools - Vaibhasika and Sautrantika - do not posit the existence of a sambhogakaya. The Mahayana schools do posit a sambhogakaya. And so the sambhogakaya in question was the one attained by Shakyamuni aeons before when he went to the pure land of Akanishta and there actually attained the state of highest perfect enlightenment. For the Mahayana schools, the Lord Buddha, having attained the state of perfect enlightenment in Akanishta aeons ago, when the time was right, in due time, without moving from his seat of enlightenment in the Akanishta pure land, he manifested as a prince in Tushita heaven and from there sent a manifestation, a nirmanakaya, to this world, to be born as the prince Siddhartha in order to demonstrate the twelve deeds of a Buddha, such as the six years of meditation and so forth, in this world. The term that is used in Tibetan is the same word that is used for pretend, you pretend to do something, make a show of doing something; so that s what the Lord Buddha did, he sent a manifestation, an emanation body or nirmanakaya to this world to make a show of how to attain enlightenment and how to teach and so forth. Part of that was showing how you renounce worldly concerns, and you exert yourself in meditation for a number of years, and then through that you become enlightened. Those who fancy themselves as followers of the Mahayana then, understand the Buddha s enlightenment in this way. The twelve deeds of a buddha then are 16

17 demonstrated in the world for the sake of the living beings there, in order to show them the way and to train them. Answer to the second question: With regard to the first dharmachakra, where was it given? What was the primary focus of the teaching? Who were the primary intended disciples? (...a study group presents their answer...) What s called the explicit human audience of the first dharmachakra were what is called the five virtuous disciples. They were the first five human disciples of the Lord Buddha in this world. But they weren t the only disciples there. You also had, for example, 84,000 divine beings who attended, as well as other human beings. Answer to the third question: The Prasangika Madhyamika have a certain view regarding which of the sutras of the three dharmachakras are to be taken literally and which are interpretative. What is their view? (...different study groups present their answers...some discussion...) The reason that the Prasangika Madhyamikas take the second dharmachakra as being literal is because they say a literal teaching is that which takes emptiness as its explicit object of elucidation. With regard to the teachings of the third dharmachakra, the Prasangikas do not consider them to be definitive, i.e. to be taken literally. Because even though the teachings of the third dharmachakra do teach emptiness, the way in which they teach emptiness is not accepted by the Prasangika as being the ultimate meaning of emptiness. This is because the emptiness as presented in the third dharmachakra is presented as the lack of phenomena being different entities from the consciousness that perceives them, that is their emptiness, of being a different entity from the consciousness that perceives them. That explanation of emptiness is not accepted by the Prasangikas to be the full or ultimate meaning of emptiness. For the Prasangikas - this is something that was not mentioned before - the first dharmachakra contains both the literal or definitive teachings as well as those that require interpretation. For the Prasangikas the aspects of the first dharmachakra that present the subtle selflessness of persons are to be taken as literal, as definitive. The others that teach various aspects of the conventional truth require interpretation. Question: What does Mind-only (Cittamatra) mean? Does it mean only mind exists? 17

18 Tape 2b Answer: They are called Mind-only, Cittamatra, because they do not accept that anything exists external to the nature of the mind; everything exists only in connection to the mind. So the Cittamatrins do not accept an external world built up by particles, substance, like atoms and so forth, external to the mind constituting the world. They say everything exists only in connection with the mind. The analogy for them is that the world that we perceive is like a dream; in a dream we have many appearances, but we understand that they do not exist externally to the mind that perceives them. Answer to the fourth question: Among the 18 sub schools of the Vaibhasikas there are some who assert the existence of a self-sufficient, substantially existent self. Does this mean they reject one of the four Buddhist seals and as such are not proponents of Buddhist tenets? (...different study groups present their answers...some discussion...and some explanation: In discussing the four seals that authenticate a teaching between Buddhists, the statement is just that all phenomena are empty and selfless; there is no need at this point to talk about the selflessness of persons versus the selflessness of phenomena. Just that there is a way to specify phenomena as being empty and selfless. So when you are discussing these tenet systems of the Vaibhasika and Sautrantika, they do not posit a separate selflessness of phenomena, but they say that all phenomena are selfless. That means everything, whether it s a person taking a person to mean a living being of any variety or any object, such as say a cup. A cup is empty and selfless. So the way they specify that is in the same way as specifying the selflessness of a living being, they say that just as a living being does not have a permanent partless independent self, just so the cup is not an object used by a permanent partless independent self. So that would be it s selflessness. Just as a living being does not have any permanent partless independent self, so any object such as the cup is not an object used by, or not an object of enjoyment of a permanent partless independent self. So then they would say that if you posit a self which has these attributes of this permanent, partless and independent, substantially existent, self-sufficient self, if you posit such a self, then you would say that the cup and so forth, any object, has a self, because it is used by such a person, such a self-sufficient, substantially existent person. 18

19 With regard to the sub-school of the Vaibhasika who do not accept that there is no substantially existent, self-sufficient self, in other words, they assert a substantially existent, self-sufficient self, are they then in violation of the four seals?) There are different views of that. There are those that would say they do not violate the four seals because they do accept selflessness of persons, i.e. the lack of a self being a permanent, partless and independent entity. There are also those who say that because they assert a self-sufficient, substantially existent self they are at odds with the four seals with regard to their view but they can still be called Buddhist with regard to their activities. So there are those who say that you can distinguish between their views and their deeds. Their deeds are those of a Buddhist, i.e. they take refuge in the Three Jewels, they take upon themselves the pratimoksha vows and so forth. So they are Buddhists from the point of view of their activity but not from the point of view of philosophy. So we can leave it at that, that there are these two views about them. There are those who say they are not Buddhist with regard to view but they are Buddhist with regard to activity; there are those that say they are Buddhist with regard to both view and activity, because the bottom line of the four seals with regard to the third seal is that you refute the idea of a permanent, independent partless self, and if you do that, then you are covered with respect to the third seal. Answer to the fifth question: From among the proponents of the four tenet systems, which ones assert the subtle selflessness of persons to be a person s lack of being a self-sufficient, substantially existent self? (...different study groups present their answers...some discussion...) We will just go directly to the answer here and skip the discussion in the interest of time. The ones among the Vaibhasikas who assert the existence of a substantially existent self-sufficient self do not accept the (lack of being a) substantially existent selfsufficient self as being the subtle selflessness of persons, because they say such a self exists. And also the Prasangika Madhyamikas do not accept that as the subtle selflessness of persons. But everyone else, including the Svatantrika Madhyamikas, the Cittamatrins, the Sautrantikas and the other Vaibhasikas all accept that as the subtle selflessness of persons. 19

20 So you have two different types of proponents of Buddhist tenets that do not accept self-sufficient substantially existent selflessness as the subtle selflessness of persons; the one sub school among the Vaibhasikas and the Prasangikas among the Madhyamikas. And their rejection of this is very different. The Vaibhasika sub school is doing so because they say such a self exists, but the Prasangikas reject that as the subtle selflessness of persons because they say it is a coarse selflessness of persons. So they accept the selflessness of persons as the lack of a substantially existent self-sufficient self, but they say that there is a more subtle selflessness, so that is the ground of their assertion that this is not the subtle selflessness. So in general we can say that the Vaibhasikas and the Sautrantikas assert both a subtle and a coarse selflessness of persons, but they do not accept a selflessness of phenomena, because they say that whatever exists necessarily has a self of phenomena. Because they believe that anything that exists truly exists and exists by way of its own nature. So those who assert a selflessness of phenomena are to be found only among the Cittamatrins and the Madhyamikas. (See Chart 3: Selflessness) Rather than going any further into the distinctions of the schools and sub schools, we ll now look at what the Prasangikas say about existence and non-existence. The Prasangika Madhyamika view of emptiness The Prasangikas assert that things or phenomena exist through being posited by the mind. They do not exist by way of their own nature. For the Prasangikas nothing whatsoever, not even the smallest particle, can exist from its own side or by way of its own nature. For the Prasangikas, to exist means to be posited as such by the mind that perceives it. When the Prasangikas speak of emptiness, emptiness means the lack of an object existing by way of its own nature or from its own side; that is its emptiness. The self of phenomena is the existence of a phenomena by way of its own nature without being merely posited by terms and concepts. If you ask the Prasangikas if the self of phenomena exists, the answer is no, it does not exist. So the Prasangikas assert both a selflessness of persons and a selflessness of phenomena. The selflessness of phenomena is the lack of phenomena existing from their own side or by way of their own nature and being merely posited by thoughts and concepts. And the subtle selflessness of persons is a person s lack of existing from its own side or by way of its own nature and being merely posited by 20

21 thoughts and concepts. And so everything that is not a person (including the five aggregates as well as all other things in the universe such rocks and trees etc), their lack of existing from their own side or from their own nature is the selflessness of phenomena. So for the Prasangikas there is no difference in coarseness and subtlety between the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena. The difference between those two selflessnesses is found only in what is called the basis of the emptiness. If the basis of the emptiness is a person then it is a selflessness of persons. If the basis is anything else, it is a selflessness of phenomena. The selflessness is the same, it is the lack of the object existing by way of its own nature or from its own side. Again the difference is found only in the basis; if the basis of the emptiness is a person, then it is a selflessness of persons, if the basis is anything else, then the selflessness is a selflessness of phenomena. So the selflessness is the same, it is the lack of the object existing by way of its own nature or from its own side. There is no difference in the subtlety or coarseness of the selflessness of persons or the selflessness of phenomena. So the difference is not in what is called the object of refutation, that s the same. What is the object of refutation? It is the existence of the object by way fo its own nature or from its own side. That is what is universally refuted; there is nothing that exists by way of its own nature or from its own side. So the only difference is in the basis of the refutation, not in the object. If the basis is the person, then it is a selflessness of persons, if the basis is anything else, then it is a selflessness of phenomena. But there is a difference in the coarseness and subtlety of the object of designation. The object of designation can be either the self of persons or the self of phenomena. So if you say the self exists, then that is the self that is merely posited by thoughts and concepts. If you say that other phenomena exist then they exist by being merely posited by thoughts and concepts. But there is a difference in coarseness and subtlety there because it s easier to realize that the self of person is merely posited by thoughts and concepts than it is to realize other phenomena to be merely posited. Having understood these teachings on emptiness and selflessness, that is, having reached a confident state of certainty with regard to these, it is still necessary to meditate on them, to habituate the mind to this view. That is because one still has defilements that have to be cleared away. So it is in order to eliminate the defilements and obscurations that one has to engage in meditation upon emptiness, after having arrived at a certainty with regard to its meaning. 21

22 What types of obscurations are these that must be eliminated? There are two types; there are what is called the afflictive obscurations and the cognitive obscurations. What is meant by these obscurations or defilements, the afflictive ones and the cognitive ones, why are they called the obscurations or defilements? They are so called because they are obstacles that stand in the way of one attaining a higher state. The afflictive obscurations are those that prevent you from going to the higher state of liberation, or in other words, which keep you in the state of cyclic existence and obstruct your path to liberation. The afflictive obscurations therefore are the various mental afflictions such as desire, anger, delusion, pride, jealousy and so forth that arise from, or are generated by the holding to a self of persons or phenomena. The cognitive obscurations, being obscurations, create obstacles that prevent you from attaining a higher state, and in this case the higher state is the state of omniscience or buddhahood. That is the function of the cognitive obscurations. For the Prasangikas the cognitive obscurations, again, which prevent you from attaining omniscience, are the subtle stains or latencies associated with the mental afflictions. Their function is to cause you to habitually see things in a dualistic manner, i.e. the subject/object dualism. So that is the nature of the cognitive obscurations. Tape 3a Then we have the process of what is called apprehending things to truly exist. What does it mean to apprehend things as truly existing? It means that our ordinary perception sees things as existing from their own side. They appear to our mind as if they existed from their own side. And if we hold them to exist the way they appear, then this is what is called apprehending things to truly exist. When we apprehend things to truly exist, apprehending things to exist as they appear to exist, then there is what s called a subtle exaggeration. This subtle exaggeration is to feel that things exist as they appear, and then you hold them to exist as they appear then there is this dualism, a dualistic view; when you hold things to truly exist then you hold some things as pleasing and attractive and others as unattractive and displeasing. This is the engagement in what is called the improper application of the mind to its objects. As a result of the improper application of the mind to its object, the mind follows after those things that it sees as attractive and rejects those things that are seen as unattractive or displeasing. From this, aversion and attachment develop. From aversion and attachment one 22