Three Principal Aspects of the Path, 22 February 1994, part 1

The great fourteenth century Tibetan master, Jé Tsongkhapa, says in his three principal aspects of the path in the handbook on page five, second last verse. Whoever sees the infallibility of cause effect link of all the mundane and transcendent things while the conception grasping to the focused object is subsided, that practitioner has entered the path delighting the Buddhas. Now in brief, what happened is in our study into the present topic of emptiness, our reality, we covered firstly the purpose or the benefit of doing study reflection and meditative familiarization or practice on emptiness. Now, this evening, we go to the second point, which is the actual way how to do the meditation on this topic, meaning how actually to do meditation on emptiness. So in brief, we look at the meaning of this verse and in the original text in Tibetan, the first opening words are mundane followed by transcendent, which, of course, get reversed in the translation.

Anyway, in brief, the meaning is by mundane, it means, anything which is, started by ignorance and therefore being a result of ignorance. So this then would mean, ignorance being the, ignorance being the producing factor and whatever produce which are, sufferings sufferings such as for humans, the four major sufferings of birth, aging, sickness, and death. Therefore, in brief, all the sufferings including the cause of the suffering which is ignorance, also they are the meaning covered by the word mundane. And transcended is being referred to whatever is produced by wisdom realizing emptiness, because wisdom realizing emptiness is something directly opposite, directly contradictory to ignorance. Therefore, whatever is produced by, wisdom realizing emptiness would be something opposite to whatever is produced by ignorance.

And what the wisdom realizing emptiness produces is the development of mind such as traversing the grounds and paths, scripturally speaking, meaning, gaining and higher realizations on different levels of path of mind leading to, enlightenment. So all those realizations and further improvement of mind are covered by the term transcended, which is to mean something beyond mundane. And now in the line here, it explains whether it is mundane thing or or it is beyond mundane anything, whatever it be, belonging to any of those two group is bound to be produced by causes and conditions, and is bound to be dependent on others, such as, on name and labeling labeling and so forth. So in brief, everything, whether it is mundane or transcendent, is a dependent exist existing existing thing, being dependent on its causes and conditions for its productions for and, being dependent on name and label, and so forth, for its existence. So that is the brief meaning.

In the same way, whether it is something we have to discard away in the course of our practice or whether it is something we have to adopt as part of our spiritual practice, whatever it be, even from those perspective, we can still say everything depends on causes and conditions, on parts and portions, and to further interpret name and labeling. So this then would mean no matter whatever it is, even in reference to one’s practice, whether it is something to discard away or whether it’s something to adopt, it is a phenomena which arises by being dependent. So it is a dependent arising thing, dependently originated thing. And as opposite implication, it would then mean there is not anything which is not dependent arising. So that would be the, what’s called implied understanding.

If everything is dependent arising, then it would mean that there isn’t anything which isn’t dependent arising. Now in this way, when one understands whether it is a mundane thing or transcendent thing that they are all dependent arising phenomena, then it would imply that there isn’t anything that is not dependent arising phenomena. Oh, well, what would such understanding do? Well, such understanding is extremely beneficial, extremely of great impact. Why it is so in that way is because when one understands everything is formed or existing dependent through dependent dependent way, way, then it would give the implied understanding that there isn’t anything which is not dependent arising.

And this would then further give the implied understanding that there isn’t anything which exist or is formed inherently or naturally. So in Tibetan, the word is same inherently or naturally. Now, if such an understanding is formed, then earlier, earlier remark that it can be very of great benefit, of great impact is because when one understands that things things do do not not exist exist inherently, inherently, then then that that really is the opening lead for one’s contact in understanding emptiness. Because that understanding that things do not inherently exist is what is is what leads the practitioner to the direct understanding of emptiness. And this is true because the misconception that things exist inherently or things are formed inherently or naturally is is what is to be proved not there.

It is what is to be negated. On those beings who have not understood and as well not realized emptiness are called ordinary beings. They’re called ordinary beings and these these are the beings who need to understand and realize emptiness. And we and as a fact, what what what is that which realizes, realizes, which which understands emptiness? Well, it has to be a mind.

So it is the mind which has to understand and realize emptiness. Now we look further what type of mind needs to what type of mind realizes or understands emptiness. Well, it has to be a valid knowledge mind, what is popular translation called valid perception. So it has to be a valid knowledge mind, which which means then emptiness should be understood and realized where by an unmistaken mind. So that’s the what’s the meaning behind a mind that it has to be valid knowledge mind.

And now in the classification of valid knowledge, there are two types of valid knowledge or two types of valid perceptions, the inferential valid perception and direct valid perception. And now in the course of a person going to understand and realize emptiness, it is first, impossible to have the to have the understanding and realization of emptiness by direct valid knowledge. Therefore, first type of mind which understands emptiness is has to be valid or valid inference, valid inference or inferential valid knowledge. So therefore, the point at this stage is, you know, the initial understanding of emptiness is done by inferential valid mind. Anyway, the valid inference or inferential valid knowledge which realizes emptiness.

So the term is used interchangeable, understand or realizes. So inferential valid knowledge which understands or realizes emptiness is a resultant phenomena. It is a result. Now if it is a result, it needs to have a cause which produces it. So that is the point so The causes which produce such a valid inference or inferential valid knowledge are such as what we what I was as a translator.

So what you would have come across in your earlier classes during classes on logic, Buddhist logic, on Pramānavārttika because there we discuss the two types of way how valid knowledge could be produced. One is through consequence reasoning, which is the Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika, the highest Buddhist school’s way of coming to conclusion, conclusion, which which is is by by by throwing the thrust or implication back to the opponent in dialectical conclusions. So one way to come to valid knowledge, in this case, inferential valid knowledge is is through consequence reasoning and the second way is which is alternative or the second is through correct reasoning. So these are the two ways through which a valid knowledge, in this this case, correct or inferential valid knowledge can be produced. We look at the first way how our valid knowledge is produced, which is the first way is through consequence reasoning or reasoning of reverse implication.

Here, say, when we are trying to gain the valid knowledge of emptiness, we put the consequence reasoning to the opponent in this way where we where we pinpoint or finger point default in the opponent’s assertion. For example, in trying to establish non inherent existence of phenomena to the opponent, we put this we put this statement as a reverse backlash to the opponent. First, it must be remembered that the opponent is asserting that phenomena or things exist inherently. And now we put this consequence back to the opponent saying, for example, sprout. Is sprout not a dependent arising thing because it is inherently existing thing?

Now what happens in this statement is the from this side, we are putting the fault or pinpointing the fault in the opponent’s assertion about inherent existence because we put forth the statement, if the sprout is if the sprout is inherently existing, then it cannot be possible for it to be dependent arising, which is an obvious fact the opponent would not be able to deny because dependent arising is something the opponent can very clearly see. So we put the statement, isn’t Sprout a dependent arising? And and the reasoning is the reverse thrust because it is inherently existing thing. So to the opponent, it becomes like contradiction of its own assertion. So that’s called trust reasoning.

And that’s how, in this case, one comes to or one brings the realization of emptiness on the opponent’s mind. So here we bring the topic of the consequence reasoning, which is the Consequentialist middle way school’s way of proving things. This then this then inevitably blends the topic of emptiness with the topic of four tenets. Well, it is inevitable because the topic of tenets or topic of tenets, which is classes of taught during the Thursday evenings, is something we do need to compare and often on bring into into the discussion when emptiness is being looked into being discussed. So in the tenets, we have four Buddhist tenets and very often during the emptiness studies and investigation into it, we do come across a cross reference to the four tenets.

And that’s why here again, we have this consequence reasoning, which is the highest school’s way of proving things brought forth in the discussion here. The Buddhist tenets are are starting from the lower schools. The first lowest the lowest school is the Particularists or Vaibhāṣhika, and above them are the Sautrantikas. Now these now the understanding of reality as interpreted by these two lower schools helps to understand the reality explained by the third Buddhist school, the mind only school. And further on, the understanding of reality explained by mind only school helps the practitioner to understand the reality explained by the school higher to it, is the school called Autonomists or popularly called the Autonomous school.

And that school’s understanding and explanation of reality helps to understand understand the highest Buddhist schools understanding of reality, the Consequentialists’ understanding of reality. In a way, therefore, we can see the four Buddhist schools of thought, the four Buddhist tenets as complementary to each other and not contradictory, complementary to each other, where the lower ones understanding helps to bring the practitioner understand the higher ones understanding of reality. And this together as a side remark would then mean that that’s how the four Buddhist tenets came into being, that they need to be four levels of understanding as the diverse mental capacity of sentient beings would be. Now the other way of coming to understand and realize emptiness is through reasonings, obviously correct reasoning. And in that method, the reasonings applied to realize or to understand emptiness can be grouped into five great reasonings, and they are called the five great reasonings to understand or to realize emptiness.

So the first reasoning is the reasoning of establishing the nature. Second, nature indicates nature of phenomena by its nature, by its entity. Second reasoning is analyzing the phenomena’s cause, the origins, and third, the result, and the fourth, analyzing both the cause and the result together. And the fifth one is what already, this evening, been looking into. That is the reasoning of dependent arising.

So in brief, are the five great reasonings. Reasonings mainly put forth to establish emptiness was the reasoning of dependent arising, which is the reasoning we just had been discussing about. And also, Tsongkhapa, in his establishing or ascertaining of emptiness as well very strongly puts forth the reasoning of dependent arising to establish emptiness. And the the way we put the reasonings of dependent arising into into a statement format, what’s called syllogism, is by firstly focusing on given example, an example and so forth. And if we are to take example for us, perhaps a good example, which as well as maintained throughout the classical period is an example we all can very observably can see which is a sprout sprout germinating from seed.

Now, obviously, the sprout has germinated from the seed as well it has dependent it had had dependent on many other factors for its formation, for its existence. Now in this we put forth, the sprout is the topic of ascertainment, a topic to be established. Now we say the sprout is not inherently existent because it depend depended on its causes and conditions for its production, which is a paraphrase of saying because it is dependent arising. It had or it had it has originated by depending on others. So the statement without then paraphrasing goes, sprout is not inherently existing because it is dependent arising.

The example is the reflection of a face in the mirror. So that’s how the how the statement goes when a sprout is established to be not inherently existing, not truly So we find there are four parts in this reasoning statement, reasoning syllogism, reasoning statements. First is this sprout. So if you without making it appear overdoing, it’s necessary to bring the physical gesture into the translation as well in this case. So first is the sprout, which is called the object of disputation because it is what is being disputed about.

And second is the that it is not inherently existent. Now that’s what is called what is to be proved because that’s what is to be established. Now if we go back this route, it is called object of disputation because also from the point some assert that it is inherently existing and others don’t assert that way. So it can be called object of disputation in that way. Now second is what is to be proved.

So that is the not inherently existent. And third part is the reasoning because because it is dependent arising. Now the now what goes is the first the sprout is being being reasoned as a dependent arising phenomena. So we have the first and third linked in the what’s called gesture demonstration of the thing. So we have this sprout being proven as a dependent arising thing in the statement.

And through that way, it is being what is to be proved. The second one, the not inherent existent is being established. And then we have the fourth one, which is the example, because it is also necessary to clarify further the point of what is being established through other supportive cases to illustrate it further as well as to correlate it to other similar situations. So the fourth one is, for example, the reflection of face in the mirror. In that case, it is quite very obviously understandable as not existing a real face existing in itself.

It’s just a reflection of an actual face in the mirror. So in this way, in the meditation sessions by the practitioner as well, these are the four avenues of relating to the non inherent existence of any phenomena, and that’s how the meditation as well is done on emptiness. All I can do is