Amitabha Buddhist Centre Lama Tsongkhapa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom
Transcript of the teachings by Geshe Chonyi
Root text from The Medium-Length Exposition of the Stages of the Path of Enlightenment Practised by Persons of Three Capacities by Lama Tsongkhapa, translation Jeffrey Hopkins, Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom © 2008 Jeffrey Hopkins, Snow Lion Publications.
All outline references refer to the outline by Trijang Rinpoche unless otherwise stated. Outlines are in bold.
Lesson No: 8 Date: 30th March 2010
We have not finished looking at the meaning of the praise to the Buddha that we recite at the beginning of the class.
With regards to the prayer, Praise to Shakyamuni Buddha, Wwe have completed looking at the meaning of the “the knower of the world, and supreme guide of human beings to be tamed” (“lha dang mi nam kyi tön pa”) from the prayer, . Praise to Shakyamuni Buddha. In short, Tthe Buddha is the unsurpassed guide who works for the benefit of sentient beings, in particular, how he works for the benefit of the fortunate disciples. The Buddha teaches aught the paths that subdue/discipline and discipline the mind. In particular, he explains the meaning of dependent origination, ; the meaning of profound emptiness. He teaches taught this to those fortunate disciples who are to be subdued.
Who are these fortunate disciples? The As seen in the prayers reads, “Tteacher of gods and human beings.” In general, there are six realms of existence. I think the If we think about the hell beings, hungry ghosts and the animals, I think they are not the suitable vessels to receive the profound teachings on the profound emptiness. Also to Tthe asuras and demigods are , they are also said to be unnot the suitable receptacles for the teachings on emptiness. It is said that even if one teaches the profound meaning of profound emptiness to the sentient beings of the lower realms, they will not be able to see the truth directly. This also applies to It is the same for tthe demigods. Even one teaches them the meaning of selflessness, it is said that they will not be able to see the truth directly.
The fortunate disciples (, literally, is the fortunate objects to be tamed by the Buddha) , who are the suitable vessels to receive for the teachings on f emptiness are the humans basically human and the gods. It is said that on the basis is of a human or and god existence, one one can realisze emptiness and see the truth directly. For this reason, the Buddha is called the “teacher of gods and human beings.”.
The Buddha works for the benefit of and is the teacher of all sentient beings. So Buddha is the teacher of sentient beings. In this contextprayer, however, the Buddha is referreds to as the “teacher of gods and human beings.” We should have to understand the reason for in this. context. Who is the person who possesses all these qualities that I have mentioned? It is Shakyamuni the Buddha, ; “the completely d perfected, and fully awakened beingone.” Here in particular is Shakyamuni Buddha. Shakyamuni Buddha who possesses all these qualities that I have mentioned.
To him, we prostrate, make offerings and go for refuge and we accumulate merits. Whenever we recite this prayer, we should and while reciting this prayer, remember to bring to mind the meaning of the words of theis prayer. We then Within this remembrance of the meaning of this prayer, we prostrate, make offerings and go for refuge to Guru Shakyamuni Buddha. As I have mentioned before, in the beginning, we will then accumulate an immeasurable amount of merits.
We have just distributed “Recognizing the Mother” (–Aa Ssong on the Experience of experience of the Middle Way View) by Changkya Rolpai Dorje. Please bring this along with you to class as I will be explaining some of the . Geshela is not going to explain all the verses but will pick the relevant verses. If you like to sing, song, perhaps this is the song that you can memorisze!.
We will continue from where we have stopped. It is important to pay full attention to what is will be said. Since you have made your way here, you may ight as well make full use of the session. because Qquite often, a lot of people are here physically but their minds are is not here and they do not paying full attention. When If you try to pay a full attention, then there is a chance that you will learn and discover something.
************************
Teaching on Special Insight
E. Detailed explanation of the conceptions of self
1. Explanation that the apprehension of a self is twofold
A. How the two apprehension of a self are the same in their [subjective] aspect, but still differentiated through their observed objects
B. The reason for differentiating the two apprehensions of a self in that manner
2. The difference between the apprehension of a self and the view of the transitory collection
A. The apprehension of an I, the view of the transitory collection has a person as its observed object
B. The difference in observed objects between the two apprehensions of true existence
C. Showing that this manner of identifying the apprehension of true existence is asserted by the noble father and son
B. The difference in observed objects between the two apprehensions of true existence
(The difference between the objects of observation of the two conceptions of self)
Earlier, we hadve looked at the object of observation of the consciousness apprehending a self of persons.
Thate object of observation of the apprehension of a self of person is neither not the body nor , is not the consciousnesses nor , it cannot be the mere collection of the aggregates but rather the object of observation of the apprehension of a self of persons is the ‘I’ or person. This is the essence of what we had covered in the last two lessons.
The object of observation of the innate consciousness apprehending a self of person is the ‘I’.
We also looked at the difference in the objects of observation between the two apprehensions of true existence.
The two apprehensions are:
1. the apprehension of a self of persons
2. the apprehension of a self of phenomena
The object of observation of an innate view of the transitory must be something that naturally generates an awareness thinking "I." Therefore, although an innate consciousness apprehending [the inherent existence] of a person whose continuum is other [than one's own continuum] is an innate consciousness apprehending a self of persons; it is not an innate view of the transitory of that person (Page 43 of the root text).
One You usually hears about these two things:
1. the iIntellectually acquired apprehensions of true existence; and
2. the iInnate apprehensions of true existence
It is the same thing with the view of the transitory. There is:
1. the iIntellectually acquired view of the transitory; and
2. the iInnate view of the transitory
What is the difference between ‘intellectually acquired’ and ‘innate’? Let us refer to the apprehension of
Let us say the apprehensions of true existence. For example, from one’s own side, one by thinksing about the person and then ttries y to understand what athe person is. From one own side, with one’s thinking Oone comes up out with all sorts of different reasons and, at the end of thate process, of one’s thinking, one believes that a the person is truly e existentce. That is an called intellectually acquired apprehensions of a truly existent person.
Just by the appearance of the person, Iif, at the mere appearance of a person, one naturally believes and grasps at thate person to be truly existentce, then such an apprehension of a truly existent person is an innate apprehension of a truly existent person..
What is the object of observation of the innate view of the transitory? It has to be “something that naturally generates an awareness thinking “I””. The innate view of the transitory needs a basis for it to arise. That basis So it has to be something that naturally generates this thought, “I.”.
Let’s say one we looks at another person and apprehends that person to be truly existentce. Theat apprehension of thate truly existent person ce is not the innate view of the transitory but it . It is an apprehension of a self of persons.
Geshela is hoping that the older students understand what is being said.
The paragraph (of the text) is saying that there is a difference between the apprehension of a self of persons (which we usually refer to as ‘grasping at the self of persons’) and the innate view of the transitory.
Ven. Gyurme: the apprehension of a self of person is usually refers to as grasping at self of person
The apprehension of a self of persons is not necessarily the innate view of the transitory.
An illustration of an apprehension of a self of persons that but is not the innate view of the transitory is this: : tthe here is apprehension of a truly existent person other than yourselfoneself, i.e., you . That is you apprehend another person to be truly existentce. Why is this so? This is Bbecause you are apprehending someone body else to be truly existentce.
· Your object of observation is a person.
· HHow are do you apprehending thate person? You apprehending thate person to exist by way of its its own character or to exist inherently. Therefore, tthis particular apprehension is called the apprehension of a self of persons.
· Yet Tthis apprehension is not the innate view of the transitory. Why is this so? not the view of the transitory?
· This is because “the object of observation of an innate view of the transitory must be something that naturally generates an awareness thinking "I."”
· When you apprehend and focus on someone else, that object of observation which is the other person does not cause you to think “I,”. you do not By focusing on another person, you don’t naturally developing theis thought of “me” or “I.”
.
The object of observation of the innate view of the transitory must be something that naturally generates the a thought thinking “I.”. So That it has to be the “I” in our own and not someone else’s continuum; not somebody else. continuum. From this it is clear that the apprehension of a self of persons and the innate view of the transitory are different and not the same.
; they are different.
Whatever is the innate view of the transitory is necessarily the apprehension of a self of persons.
· There isn’t such a thing which is the innate view of the transitory but not an apprehension of a a self of persons.
· However, iIf it is an apprehension of a a self of persons, it is not necessarily the innate view of the transitory.
but if it is the view of the transitory, it is necessarily an apprehension of a self of person.
This is how the pervasion works.
Question by student: With regards to the innate view of the transitory, does it have to be grasping at the one “I” that is to be inherently existentce or can it be grasping at the one “I” that is to be self- sufficient substantially existentce or at the can it be grasping at one “I” that is to be permanent, unitary and independentce?
AnswerGeshela: In the context here, tThe innate view of the transitory in this context here is according to the highest school, the CMWS. Here we are trying to posit what exactly is the root of cyclic existence.
We can look at this phrase it in another way.
· In generalT, there is a mind that focuses on a person. This mind apprehends the person to exist inherently (i.e., exist truly, ; existing by way of itsits own character). This mind is called the apprehension of a self of persons.
· When we talk about a person, it is either oneself or others. There isn’t a person that is neither of these two.
When we talk about a person, it is either I or others. If it is a person, it has to be either oneself or others. There isn’t a person that is not either of these two.
IIs there a person that is not oneself and is not others?
· If it is a person, it has to be either oneself or others. Is this definite? Is there another possibility? You have to ascertain this from your heart.
o Let’s talk about of all the things that exist i.e. objects of knowledge, i.e., ; things that exist and that can be known. They can be condensed into two categories: they are either persons or non-persons. Is there a third possibility? Is there something that exists but isthat is neither a person nor a non-person? The answer is no.
o So it is the same line of reasoning with athe person. When we talk about a person, the illustration of a person is either oneself or others. Therefore if it a person, it is either yourself or someone else. There isn’t a person that is neither oneself you nor someone else.
· Basically When we focus on our “I” and we apprehend this “I” in our own continuum to exist by way of its own character or exist inherently, that . That apprehension of oneself as inherently existentce is the innate a view of the transitory.
· When we If you apprehend another person (other than oneselfwhich is not you) to exist by way of its his/her own character or exist inherently, , that is an apprehension of a self of persons and it is not an innate view of the transitory.
However, both are apprehensions of a self of persons, . Both of them apprehending the person to exist by way of its its own character..
In the first place, iIn order to understanding this, we have to understand what is the apprehension of a self of persons on its own and what is the innate view of the transitory is. These two, Their their mode of apprehension (i.e., their way they of apprehending their objects) areis the same i.e., they apprehend the person to exist by way of itsits own character or to exist inherently. But their objects of observation areis different: