|
Madhyamika Teaching (I)
Late Ven. Khenpo Migmar Tsering
Sydney, Australia - 1993
[Please note:
Any errors that appear here is due to my lack of skill in transcribing, and are not the faults of the actual teacher or teachings themselves.]
INTRODUCTION
Although we are here going to follow a text of the Prasangika school of Madhyamika Buddhism the difference between Prasangika and Svatantrika schools are only in their approach to teaching the concepts not in the basic concepts. If one says "a cup is half full" this comes to the same thing as saying "a cup is half empty" but there is a difference in the effectiveness of that communication for different people. In the same way the Prasangika and Svatantrika sub-schools of Madhyamika, have different ways of establishing emptiness. They differ in the same way as the two phrases about the content of the cup differ. Other than that there is no ultimate difference.
These two systems arose after Nagarjuna. Acarya Candrakirti wrote the Madhyamikavatara in order to establish the Prasangika system and reject the Svatantrika system. The title Madhyamikavatara means gate way or entrance to Madhyamika. The text we are going to deal with was composed by Acarya Candrakirti in the line of Buddhapalita. This is a Madhyamika text in the Prasangika Madhyamika system. Acarya Candrakirti also composed an auto-commentary and he also wrote a word by word commentary to the fundamental text of Nagarjuna the Mulamadhyamikakarika which is called Prasannapada. The text we are studying here the Madhyamikavatara could be regarded as a commentary on the Mulamadhyamikakarika, but it is not a word by word commentary; it is a commentary in respect to being an explanation of the meaning of Mulamadhyamikakarika, but it does not follow the order of the orginal text.
When Buddhism came to Tibet this text was translated together with other Madhyamika texts. The particular Madhyamikavatara that we are dealing with was translated during the later propogation of Buddhism by Pa-tshab Nyi-ma grags who was the principle translator of the Prasangika literature of Madhyamika into Tibetan.
How Tibetans came to follow the Madhyamika system of Nagarjuna.
However there was also the study of Madhyamika during the earlier propagation of Buddhism during the reign of the three Dharma Kings in Tibet, particularly during the reign of the second Dharma King Trisong Detsen in whose time the great Indian masters Guru Padmasambavha and Arcarya Shantarakshita and his student Kamalashila [8th Century] were all invited to Tibet and they were all believed to be Madhyamika masters. This indicates that there was a Madhyamika study going on in Tibet at that time.
There is a particular story of a debate that illustrates how Tibetans came to follow the Madhyamika system of Nagarjuna. At the time of Trisong Detsen, after the visit of Bodhisattva Shantarakshita, a Chinese Mahayana or Hoshang master came to Tibet giving his teachings and his interpretation of Mahayana Buddhism which he claimed was a very fast path. According to this Master there was no need for any action or methods to achieve wisdom. His path was that one should not think of anything but rather stop every type of thought process or action, for while you thought or acted you would definitely find yourself in samsara. If you do a non virtuous action you will have negative results, and if you do a virtous action you will have a good result but it is still in samsara. So whether you do good thing or a bad thing you will remain in samsara for ever. So if you want to go out of samsara you stop every kind of action and this is a very good and fast way. This was the teaching of that Chinese Master.
There were many people following him, because as is always the case by nature sentient beings would like to follow that kind of teaching which looks impressive and easier and giving fast result. However the King and some Tibetans who were close disciples of Shantarakshita, who had already visited and left Tibet, were in doubt about this Chinese Master and did not believe in him. The disciples and the King discussed this and they remembered a prophesy made by Shantarakshita saying that a certain problem of doubt would arise and then they should invite his student Kamalashila to Tibet. They did this and when he came he and the Chinese Master had a debate and the Chinese Mahayana Master was defeated. When the debate was held the Chinese Master and his disciples stood on one side of the King, and Kamalashila and his disciples stood on the other side. The Chinese side was very long as most of the people were with him, but Kamalashila refuted his ideas through reasoning.
This story was mentioned in a number of texts including an important text written by Sakya Pandita called "Illuminating Sages Intent". The Chinese Master said that his path was like an eagle flying from the sky and landing on the top branch of the tree, whereas Kamalashila's path which requires a lot of practice and method was like a monkey who will first has to grow and then slowly climb from the base of the tree and then reach the top of the tree. So he claimed his way of reaching the top from above is much faster than coming from below. In answer to that Kamalashila asked whether the eagle needed to grow his wings and develop his skill of flying or whether the eagle was there in the beginning. The Chinese Master agreed that the eagle needed to grow, and so Kamalashila said that in that case it is the same as my path as there cannot be an eagle in the beginning out of space without having to grow and develop, so there is also need of method.
So this story indicates that there was interest in the Madhyamika system at the time of the earlier propogation. Furthermore after that Chinese Master was defeated in that debate King Trisong Detsen declared that all Tibetans should not follw the Chinese way but should follow the Indian way of Madhyamika Buddhism that is the Nagarjuna way. So this is the way that Tibetans came to follow the Madhyamika system of Nagarjuna.
The Svantantrika Madhyamika philosophy began with Bhavavika the first Svantantrika Master. Following him Acarya Gyanagarva, Acarya Shantarakshita and Kamalashila are said to be scholars of the Svatantrika Madhyamika rather than of the Prasangika Madhyamika school. These three were called the three eastern scholars of Svatantrika, so they are Madhyamika Svatantrika philosophers. As explained earlier that even though Madhyamika in Tibet began with the Svatantrika scholars since there was no difference in the ultimate viewpoint between the Svatantrika and the Prasangika schools, the scholars in the later propogation of Buddhism in Tibet came to appreciate and follow the Candrakirti way of Madhyamika, that is the Prasangika school. The only difference between the two schools is in the way the ultimate emptiness is established, not in the understanding or realisation or in the meaning of ultimate emptiness. So it is compatible to follow the text of Shantarakshita the Madhyamikalankara*, The Ornament of Madhyamika which has also been translated into Tibetan.
Having come into Tibet in this way, then it slowly spread. In the earlier part of the later propogation of Buddhism in Tibet the practices and teachings emphasised the Vajrayana side more. The terms 'earlier propogation' and 'later propogation' of Buddhism are based on Vajrayana teaching not on the Paramitrayana teaching because in the early propogation of Buddhism the tantric texts brought were of the old tantric system, while in the later propogation it is of the new tantric system. The main difference between the Nyigma school and the other three schools is the difference between the old and the new system of tantra, and this is the main basis of the difference between the two periods of the propogation of Buddhism in Tibet. So at that later time the main emphasis was on Vajrayana, however the Madhyamika texts like Mulamadhyamikakarika, Madhyamikavatara were also studied by scholars who would then later engage mainly in the Vajrayana teachings. They would always have the Madhyamika teachings as a basis. There were many commentaries written at that time. For example there is sometimes an arguement as to whether the five founders of the Sakya school were following the Prasangika or the Svatantrika system because there is no clear mention in their works as to which one they followed. Some other scholars would say that they followed the Svatantrika system because in the early propogation of Tibetan Buddhism it was mainly the Svatantrika Madhyamika of Shantarakshita that was followed and these scholars followed suit.
Svatantrika and Prasangika
However although they may have followed Svatantrika there is not much difference especially in respect to ultimate emptiness. In the later propogation of Buddhism most of the scholars followed the system of Candrakirti, that is the Prasangika system. King Trisong Detsen's proclamation stated simply that one should follow Nagarjuna, there was no specific reference to Prasangika or Svatantrika. However in the later period of Buddhism the Madhyamika system followed was mainly Candrakirti's system or the Prasangika system. This was because this system was made very stable and strong by Candrakirti and he is the main reference for this system of Madhyamika.
Then some time in the late fourteenth and fifteenth century there were many Tibetan Masters who wrote many commentaries on the Madhyamika literature. They wrote a lot of commentaries on Nagarjuna fundamental text and then on Candrakirti's Madhyamikavatara. So there are many commentaries on Madhyamikavatara. There is one commentary which has become the fundamental commentary for many Tibetan schools. It was written by a Tibetan scholar called Red-\ da'-ba Zhon-nu-blo gros, who eventually was one of the teachers of Tsong Khapa the founder of the Gelugpa school. In fact he was the one who taught him Madhyamika and many other Paramita systems. Red-\ da'-ba Zhon-nu-blo gros wrote one commentary which explains the Madhyamikavatara in a general way. This commentary is not aligned to any particular system within the Prasangika school. One can explain the root text in a number of ways from this commentary because it does not adhere to a distinctive set of ideas. The differences between the schools are quite evident in the explanation of the Madhyamika system because so much has been written on it that even scholars within the same schools have some variation of interpretation.
In the course of philosopical study you will come across a lot of different interpretations and different arguements, but these arguements and the rejection of these arguements may also help you in dispelling your doubts because in the course of your study it is natural that a lot of doubts will arise. It will seem to you that more doubts will arise as you study more and more. In the beginning you have not opened your mind towards that field, but as you open your mind then many doubts arise. So the arising of doubts is a sign of your learning, it is not a sign of weakness. Particularly there is a time when you first come into contact with the philosophical study when it is broadly explained and it seems easy and quite OK, but then when you go a little further then doubts will arise more and more. As you come to more definite conclusions then the doubts will start to decrease and will become less and less. So having doubts is one way of learning the philosophy.
Scholars say that there is no limit or end to the conceptual thoughts people can create, so if we analyse things from the philsophical point of view too elaborately, as some scholars will do, then we will fall into the trap of endless logical and analytical study. This is not well regarded in the circles of philosophical study. We should analyse and examine but there is a limit as far as the valid understanding is concerned and that limitation is also understood better as you engage in the study of philosophy. A common beings conceptual thought is so varied that if you don't stop at a certain limit then this leads to so many different things that you will find yourself in a state where there is nothing to grasp at but endless conceptual ideas. So some type of philosophical study and understanding are necessary in the course of your practice, but if you spend an unneccessary amount of time analysing, particularly analysing conventional things, then this can be an obstacle to actual practice.
THE ACTUAL TEXT
The main Sakya commentaries which we study in philosophical instiutes are the commentaries written by Go-rams-pa Bsod-rams-seng-ge a scholar of the 15th century who wrote complete commentaries on a number of different topics such as Madhyamika and Prajnaparamita, and the ideas expressed in these commentaries was regarded as the principle Sakya ideas. Other schools would say that his commentaries are the later Sakya ideas and that they differed from the ideas of the five founders of the Sakya school of the eleventh and twelfth century. However Sakyapa would say that the ideas expressed by Go-rams-pa Bsod-rams-seng-ge in his commentaries and the ideas of the five founders are the same. The only thing that Go-rams-pa did is that he exposed the ideas more clearly and established the ideas expressed by the five founders. He wrote several Madhyamika texts: one analytical commentary to the Madhyamika, based on the detailed subject matter; one Madhyamika text that deals with the general meaning of Madhyamika; and one short text on the growth of Madhyamika system and the different schools.
We will not be following the analytical text but we will be dealing with the text based on the general meaning of Madhyamika by Go-rams-pa Bsod-rams-seng-ge. The name of this text is Madhyamikavataranama which means it is called Entering the Madhyamika. This entering refers to entering the Mulamadhyamikakarika. With the Madhyamika there are explanations of the actual and the imputed versions just as is the case with the Abhidaharma explanations. With Madhyamika we have resultant Madhyamika, path Madhyamika and textual Madhyamika. Now this entering Madhyamika as in the title refers to the textual Madhyamika. This is not of course the real Madhyamika, the actual Madhyamika is the resultant Madhyamika which is the ultimate emptiness understood or realised by the Buddha. Just as the resultant Abhidharma is the omnicient knowledge of a Buddha, that ultimate suchness realised by the knowledge of a Buddha is said to be the resultant Madhyamika, that is the final Madhyamika. The Madhyamika that is theobject of realisation during the path is known as the path Madhyamika which begins with the first Bhumi and goes on to the tenth Bhumi and which is the object of understanding at these levels. The textual Madhyamika is of course those texts that explain the Madhyamika theory. This textual Madhyamika is also of two types the Sutra and the Shastra. Textual Madhyamika in respect to Sutra is of course the Prajnaparamita Sutras, and the textual Madhyamika with respect to Shastra is then all the commentaries that are related to Madhyamika such as Mulamadhyamika the fundamental text of Nagarjuna, such as this text Madhyamikavatara.
So here when it says "entering the Madhyamika" of those three Madhyamikas it refers to the textual Madhyamika and of the textual Madhyamika types it refers to the Shastras. There are many Shastras that are textual Madhyamika but this text refers only to the Mulamadhyamikakarika. This is because Candrakirti explains Madhyamika in accordance with the ideas of Nagarjuna, so that by understanding the contents of this text the student can then understand the contents of the fundamental text of Nagarjuna also. In this way the study of this text is like entering into a room. In order to enter you have to come through a certain doorway to enter the room. In the same way you have to study this text in order to enter into the Mulamadhyamikakarika fundemental text. For this reason it is called "Entering the Madhyamika".
All Philosophical Schools believe themselves to be in the Middle Way.
The Vabhashika school believes that the path which they show in their texts is also a Madhyamika or middle way. Indeed every Buddhist school believes that grasping the self as eternal - which is the extreme of eternalism; or grasping at something as non existant - which is the extreme of nihilism; are both wrong. So one has to be in the middle path not aligned to any of these extremes. The Vabhashika school would say that the path and practice mentioned in their doctrine is a middle path. If someone were to reject the five fundamentals then one would be in the extreme of nihilism, but because one accepts the existance of these five fundamentals one is not in the extreme of nihilism. In the Vabhashika school one rejects, and does not accept the existance of a substantial self, a substantial atma, a substantial person, nor does one accpet the existance of any kind of gross substances. For example according to the Vabhashika school when we talk about the visible form of a cup the gross shape and colour of that cup is not existant in a substantial way but the particle and atoms that make up that cup do exist in a substantial way. So that when Vabhashika says that of the five fundamentals the fundamental of form is substantially existant it refers to the atoms of the form which exist in a substantial way. But the gross shapes that we think exist externally are not substantially existant. So they reject the existance of gross forms and of the self and by rejecting these imputed things the believer of the Vabhashika philosophy is not aligned to the extreme of eternalism or existance. So he remains in the middle path. This is how a Vabhashika would define the middle path or Madhyamika path in relation to their practice.
In the same way a Svatantrika Buddhist would say that his path is a middle way. Again his doctrin speaks about accepting something and rejecting something. By accepting the existance of a momentary consciousness and subtle atoms one is not in the extreme of nihilism. The extreme of nihilism is an idea where you reject someting that exists. So here the subtle form atom and the momentary consciousness or the mind do exist substantially and the Svatantrikas accept this. They would again reject the existance of a self, the same as the Vabhashika, and they would also reject the existance of what Vabhashika alone would accept "the non-informative form", which only Vabhashika believe. They reject the substantial existance of permanent or uncompounded things such as cessation. Because of rejecting these things they do not remain in the extreme of existance. So a believer of Svatantrika philosophy also remains in the middle way.
The same thing is said by the Yogacara school. The Yogacara explains phenomena on the basis of three Dharmas: the imputed dharma, the dharmas dependent on others and complete accomplishment. The imputed dharma refers to all the imputed things such as the imputed self and imputed gross things, in fact all external things are imputed on the basis of mind. It is only the appearance of the mind but people impute and grasp them as something external. So all these things which appear as externally existant are imputed things and do not exist. So they reject the existance of external things - all these imputations. Due to this they do not have the extreme of eternalism.
They do accept the existance of a mind, particularly of a non-dual mind as they would say, non-dual referring to a mind without the grasped or the grasping, where 'the grasped' refers to the external object and the 'grasping' refers to that part of mind that graps the external object. As long as there is no external thing the mind that is pointed to those external things also becomes non existant. So we have only one mind that is not pointed to external things which is the mind which looks within itself and which is devoid of these two the grapsed and the grasping. This is what they accept as existant. Also they accept as existant the emptiness of imputed things. For example external things are imputed on the appearance of the mind. This mind which exists is called the "depending on others" [Gzhan-dbang] and in this case the mind itself is not empty of itself, as the Madhyamikas would say, but it is empty of its imputed factor. In other words it is empty of any external existance.
Yogacara say that all external things are nothing they are not other than mind. But then we can ask "is there any external thing in the mind?", because even though these external things are not external, they could be internal to the mind in the form of something external. So we ask them is there any part of mind which looks external. In that case if that is so then external things would also exist substantially not in the form of being external from mind but within mind in an external form. In other words we may not have a cup which is separate from mind, but we can accept a cup which is part of mind or which is a mind, that is a cup that is an internal part of mind may exist. This arguement may arise and Yogacar says in respect to this that external things appearing from the mind are only the result of mental projection. There is nothing in reality that even appears as external, so the mind is empty of any external thing. This emptiness can be called the 'emptiness of other'. The general Madhyamika emptiness is self emptiness.
COMPASSION AS THE OBJECT OF SALUTATION
The dedication of this text does not praise any Buddha or Bodhisattva but the object of salutation in this case is the compassion. In order to explain why he chose compassion as the object of salutation he traces the importance of compassion together with the other causes for the beings on the Aryan path. The shravaka and the middle Buddhas or pratyekabuddhas arise or are born from Buddhas, and Buddhas are born from bodhisattvas, and the causes of Bodhisattvas are of three types:
1. compasssion,
2. non-dual mind and
3. bodhicitta
Out of these three compassion is the most important because in order to grow the crop of the final result compassion is important in the beginning as the seed, and then in the middle it is needed in the same way as water is necessary for the growth of the crop, and in the end it is like the ripening of the crop. Compassion is necessary in order to be able to enjoy the fruit, or for it to be consumed by people. Therefore Candrakirti says in the beginning he has chosen compassion as the object of his praise and salutation.
So in the salutation to compassion he describes all the three causes ofa Bodhisattva and the ways Arya beings are born. So in the beginning when it says that Shravaka and Pratyekabuddhas are born from Buddhas this means that the root of all those practitioners who are on the path, and also all those who are the realised ones, depend on compassion as a cause. Even the final attainment of shravaka and pratyekabuddhas also depends on compassion. Not in the sense that a lot of practice of compassion is neccessary in the practice of shravaka itself, but because a person becomes a shravaka Arhat or a pratyekabuddha Arhat by depending on the teachings of the Buddha. This is particularly the case with practitioners of the shravaka system. This is why they are called nyan-thos or "hearers" [Sanskrit shravaka]. This means for the attainment of the shravaka result one has to be a direct disciple of the Buddha and then has to listen to the teachings of the Buddha. So we know that most of the disciples of Buddha Shakyamuni are the shravaka or hearers. That is because those who have the imprints of the teachings of Hinayana or the teachings of shravaka can be easily aroused by listening to the teachings of the Buddha and then they immediately attain their respective results. This was the case for example with the first five disciples of the Buddha.
reqirements for attaining buddhahood
There are three things that a Bodhisattva has to complete to attain the state of Buddhahood.
1. the accumulation of merit
2. ripening the disciple
3. purifying one's Buddha realm
ripening the disciple
The ripening of the discipple means that a practitioner on the way to Buddhahood has to prepare his disciples. In the course of his practice he will be meeting different types of disciples. The process of benefitting sentient beings is to ripen those sentient beings who havenot been ripened and to liberate those sentient beings who have not been liberated. This is also found in the context of Vajrayana with the initiation being the ripening factor and the subsequent visualisation and practices, particularly the two processes, being the liberating factor. In the paramitayana when we say someone ripens a being this means that the practitioner, in this case a bodhisattva, places someone on such a level where a certain type of teaching will then be enough to liberate that being from samsara. In other words they are placing someone on the fourth level in the path of application. The the path of application is before the the path of seeing and it has four divisions:
i. the level of heat
ii. the level of the crescent
iii. the level of patience
iv. the most excellent dharma
So when a bodhisattva helps a particular practitioner to ascend on these different level and causes him to reach the fourth stage of the path of application which is the path of excellent dharma then it is the first Bhumi and very near to the the path of seeing. Only a little effort is necessary to make that practitioner reach the stage of first Bhumi. So when a bodhisattva places a being on the level of the excellent dharma which is just one moment before the path of seeing then this is called ripening the being. In the case of the first fice disciples of the Buddha it is said that in the course of their previous contacts Buddha has already ripened them, which means he has already placed them on the level of excellent dharma so only a little teaching or effort is necessary for them to become an Arya or to reach the path of seeing. In this case not the first Bhumi because being in the Hinayana or shravaka path they have the path of seeing and the path of an Arya but they are not on the Bhumi of the Mahayana path.
the yanas and the paths of practice
The five paths are there in all the yanas or all the practices. They are there in Mahayana, Shravakayana or Pratyekabuddhayana. The system of ten Bhumis is only applicable to the Mahayana. The system of four results is only applicable to the Shravaka and Pratyekabuddhayana. So in the shravakayana when one attains the path of seeing, in the same way as a bodhisattva when (s)he attains the path of seeing becomes an Arya or noble being, a Hinayana practitioner also becomes an Arya when (s)he attains the state of the path of seeing. Attaining the path of seeing is the same as becoming a Stream Enterer. In other words (s)he reaches the first result which is the counterpart of the first Bhumi in the Mahayana.
The shravaka practitioners achieve the result in accordance with the level of their intellectual faculties by listening to the teachings of the Buddha. Depending on their level of understanding or intellect they attain the different results of shravakas: some become Stream Enterer, some become returner, some become non-returner, some become even arhats. One is referred to as an Arya from the level of Stream Enterer to the level of arhat. When the first wheel of dharma was turned in the form of the Four Noble Truths the ripening factor was already achieved through the link in the previous contacts with the Buddha, for those disciples, headed by the five main disciples, that gathered for that teaching. Therefor as soon as they received that teaching some of them attained the state of a non-returner, some of them attained the state of a Stream Enterer and one even became an arhat. Anyhow they reached the noble Aryan state.
Shariputra and Maudhgalyaputra were in the beginning practitioners of another philosophy and religion and then after meeting the Buddha they became his disciples. At the time of Buddha there were ten ways of ordaining a monk. The system which exists now is only one of the ten and that is through ritual. At this time we can only ordain or give vows to someone through the ritual discribed in the Vinaya text not through any other way. At the time of the Buddha, Buddha would sometimes ordain someone simply by calling his or her name; sometimes through correspondence; sometimes just by letting that person accept the refuge. In the case of Shariputra he became ordained just by Buddha calling his name.
Not only his ordination but his attainment of arhatship was the direct result of his listening to the teachings of the Buddha. So among the shravakas whether one is a Stream Enterer or an Arhat all depends directly on listening to the teaching of the Buddha. Pratyekabuddhas are the self realisers. They achieve their final result when there is no Buddha and no shravakas. Pratyekabuddhas are those practitioners who were not ripe enough to achieve the final result or arhatship at the time of the Buddha. Their causes and connections were all collected at the time of the Buddha by listening to the teachings, but they were not ripe enough and the result was not able to be achieved at that time. As a result of the link they made at the time of Buddha they are born at a time when there are no Buddhas or shravakas and at that time the final attainment is reached by themselves without any direct guidance. This is why they are called self realisers. There are two types of self realisers or Pratyekabuddhas - those who remain alone or solitary Pratyekabuddhas [called "Rhinocerous Pratyekabuddhas" in Tibetan] and those who remain in groups [called "enjoying company Pratyekabuddhas in Tibetan]. Those who remain alone are regarded as higher Pratyekabuddhas. They are alone and they achieve their final Arhatship in an isolated place. However this is also an indirect result of having listened to the teachings in the past, so both Shravaka and Pratyekabuddhas are born from Buddhas.
buddhas born of Bodhisattvas
Where does a Buddha come from? How is a Buddha born? A Buddha is born from a Bodhisattva. This means there are two ways of becoming a Buddha and both depend on a Bodhisattva. One is from the development of one's own mental continuum and the other is from another Bodhisattva. Ones own mental continuum means that through practicising one first becomes a bodhisattva and goes through the ten Bhumis and after the tenth Bhumi then one comes a Buddha. So that state of Buddhahood is the direct result of the tenth Bhumi which is the state of a Bodhisattva. So in this instance a Buddha arises from a Bodhisattva. The other way of a Buddha being born from a Bodhisattva is from another Bodhisattva such as Manjushri helping another being to generate bodhicitta and finally attain Buddhahood as in the case of Buddha Shakyamuni having been helped by Manjushri to generate bodhicitta and attain Buddhahood. So that is also how a Buddha is born from a Bodhisattva.
types of aryas
When we make a classification of the Arya beings or exalted beings we talk about four types of Arya. All these four types of exalted beings are those who are on the path and the result of realisation. The four are the Arya shravaka , the Arya pratyekabuddha , the Arya Bodhisattva and the Arya Buddha. The word Arya or exalted being means someone who is superior to ordinaty beings by having direct understanding of emptiness. Of course the emptiness or direct suchness would differ from Arya to Arya. The emptiness that is realised by a Shravaka is not the same as the ultimate suchness that is realised by a Buddha. But in all the four Aryas there is a direct understanding of emptiness. So they are referred to as Arya due to this.
Origins of a Bodhisattva
Out of the four Arya beings shravaka and pratyekabuddhas are dependent on a Buddha, a Buddha is dependent on a Bodhisattva. So then there is the question how is a Bodhisattva born? A Bodhisattva is born from three factors, three causes:
i. compassion
ii. non-dual mind
iii. bodhicitta
Compassion of course is that mental state in which one wishes other beings to get rid of sufferings, to remain in a state where there is no suffering. When one wishes that others do not have any suffering that kind of mental state is regarded as compassion.
Non-dual mind is the mind which is not limited to the grasping of existance or non-existance. In other words it is the understanding of the ultimate suchness. This understanding begins in a conceptual way. When we say that the three causes are necessary to create a Bodhisattva we refer to this conceptual understanding of the non duality as one of the causes. We refer here to a Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi or an Arya Bodhisattva. There are different opinions in this case also. According to some scholars the Bodhisattva mentioned here, being the reslult of the three causes can be any kind of Bodhisattva, even a Bodhisattva on the first path of accumulation. But according to the interpretation of Korampa Sonem Senge this Bodhisattva refers only to the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi and above, in other words it should be an Arya Bodhisattva. To become an Arya Bodhisattva these three causes should be effective and these should be practiced in the time of the first two paths before the path of an Arya.
So this means that this non-dual mind is also there during the path of accumulation and the path of application. So this non-dual mind does not necessarily mean the direct understanding of non-duality. The mind which conceptually understands that there is non-duality, that has a conceptual thought that there is non-duality can also be referred to as a non-dual mind. In other words after doing study and then having a firm understanding when we point our mind on the understanding of non-duality, conceptually thinking that there is no two things, there is no existance nor non-existance this then is having non-dual mind. An understanding of emptiness for example as the merenegation of existance will mean that you will be attached to the non-existance, or the negation. If you do this then this is a wrong path because in Mahayana just as the grasping of existance is wrong, so the grasping of non-existance is also wrong. It is said by Acarya Shantideva in Bodhicaryavatara that as long as there isn't anything in the first place which can be said to be existant then there surely cannot be any thing that is said to be non-existant. If a thing does not exist in the first place then existance and non-existance are both imputed to a particular thing. When that thing does not exist in the first place then all these other qualities cannot be imputed upon it.
Also non-existance is also dependent on existance so when existance is not there then naturally non-existance which is dependent on it will also not be there. So this understanding of the non-dual as having no existance as well as no non-existance is what is meant by the non-dual mind.
Then bodhicitta of course refers to that mental state in which one wishes the attainment of Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings, that is the mind of enlightenment.
So these three causes are necessary for someone to become a Bodhisattva. After one accomplishes in the practices of these three causes during the two paths: the path of accumulation and the path of application, then at the time of attaining the path of seeing one becomes a noble Bodhisattva or an Arya Bodhisattva.
So the Shravaka and Pratyekabuddhas are dependent on a Buddha, a Buddha is dependent on a Bodhisattva. The Bodhisattva on the tenth Bhumi is dependent on a Bodhisattva on the ninth Bhumi,........up to the Bodhisattva on the second Bhumi is dependent on the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi. The causes of the Arya Bodhisattva as a whole are these three factors. Out of these three factors the most important of all is the compassion. The importance of mental qualities and practices will vary from circumstance to circumstance. This can be understood also in the context of Vajrayana for instance.
The four tantras
Out of the four Tantras we say that the Annuttarayogatantra is the highest and the most complete form of practice. Within Annuttarayogatantra we have Father tantra, Mother tantra and Non-dual tantra. In some context Mother tantra is considered to be the highest tantra; in another context Non-dual tantra is considered to be the highest. The fact is that whether it is Father Mother or Non-dual tantra all these tantric practices in the Annuttarayogatantra are complete forms of practice, which if you follow them in the right way will lead you to the state of Buddha, the state of Vajradhara. There is no need for that practitioner to go to the other tantras within the Annuttarayogatantra in order to achieve the supreme state of attainment. It is not like that.
The explanation of some tantra being supreme is only in the context of that tantra. It can be considered to be a matter of interpretation and is not exactly definitive. For example in paramitayana teachings we talk a lot about the practice of giving. When it comes to explaining the advantages of giving then we present the idea of the practice of giving in such a way that one can have the impression that this is the only and most important practice in all Buddhist practices because such great advantages and benefits are mentioned. When it comes to moral disciplin it is the same. When we deal with hearing contemplation and meditation it is the same and then when it comes to learning then so many advantages are mentioned about learning that you will have a feeling that this alone is the most important practice. But these descriptions are given in this way because the teaching is intended to arouse the eagerness or the wish in the mind of the practitioner to engage in that particular practice. When one accomplishes that practice then of course that is not the limit, naturally in the course of ones practice then other texts will elaborate the importance or benefit of another practice.
compassion bodhicitta and non-dual mind
In the same way sometimes bodhicitta is explained as the most important practice and sometimes compassion is. Because bodhicitta is also dependent on compassion then here in this text compassion is regarded as most fundamental and as the root cause. As explained earlier there are two ways of presenting a sequential order of these three causes. One is the natural order
Sometimes bodhicitta is regarded as the most important sometimes compassion. One order that can occur is that compassion is the root cause of bodhicitta and then you realise that you need non-dual mind [132]. This can be regarded as the natural order. Alternatively having earlier karma with the teaching so that it is easy to understand the concept of non-duality, then one can understand suchness which will lead to compassion for those who cannot understand the nature of suchnes. Thus leading to the order 213. Bodhicitta always comes after compassion. Indeed compassion comes after loving kindness. Loving kindness comes first and that leads to compassion and that is needed for bodhicitta.
DISCONTINUTITY OF TAPE
Those who have had contact with Mahayana teachings and teachings on emptiness in previous lifetimes and as a result of that when they first com einto contact with teachings of emptiness naturally they will have a liking towards that teaching and come to have a conceptual understanding of what is emptiness. In other words they will first produce the non-dual mind before compassion and bodhicitta, because they have not gone through these practices previously they have only come across the teaching of emptiness before. This is because they have a link. If people do not have a link then they will not be able to grasp the teaching of emptiness, they will turn away from that teaching. For those people then the best method is to train them in the usual way teaching compassion and then bodhicitta and then finally the non-dual mind will come. But those having karmic connection with emptiness can generate the non-dual mind in the beginning, after understanding emptiness then they will come to have compassion as a result of that, because they will find that all sentient beings are in samsara as a result of not having this non-dual mind, or not understanding the ultimate nature. So they will feel pity towards all sentient beings and have compassion. After compassion naturally you would like to attain the state of Buddhahood to help all sentient beings and so develop bodhicitta. So non-dual mind compassion and bodhicitta is another order.
So in whatever way bodhicitta definitely comes after compassion and if we go further compassion is also caused by loving kindness as in the four limitless meditation. Before one wishes others not to have suffering one will wish others to have happiness, and that wishing of attaining happiness for others is called loving kindness. Loving kindness will cause the sense of compassion and that will lead to the generation of bodhicitta and out of these three causes compassion is the most fundamental and so Acarya Candrakirti has in the beginning said he would like to praise the compassion which is the root cause of all the qualities and the root cause of all the arya beings.
After this he divides compassion into three, and makes further prostrations, and further praises of compassion. The three forms of compassion are:
i. compassion which has sentient beings as object
ii. compassion which has dharma as the object
iii. compassion without object
The second compassion is the one directed towards sentient beings who are impermanent, like the reflection of the moon in water. It does not stay, it moves as the wind moves the water. All sentient beings have suffering of conditioned existance because nothing is permanent. This is the nature of things. In the salutation he also bows down to the third compassion that is directed at sentient beings who are empty of inherent existance, likened again to the reflection of the moon in water. There is no real moon in the water, all sentient beings appear as real, but are empty by nature, their ultimate nature is empty of inherent existance.
With respect to the first compassion he makes the following salutation:
Sentient beings,
By first clinging to self grapsing
Are attached to self possessed phenomena,
They have no more freedom
Than the metal wheel for drawing water.
I bow down to that compassion which is directed to all such sentient beings.
OR
I bow down to that compassion directed to all sentient beings, who being dependent and without any freedom, go through the cycle of birth and death in samsara, like the turning of the metal wheel for drawing water.
Sentient beings under the power of delusion are likened to the bucket that is not free, but goes up and down under the turning of the well wheel.
the causes of the cycle of samsaric existance
What is the cause of this cycle? There are three causes:
i. grasping of the five aggregates as being inherently existent
ii. being attached to the self (self grasping)
iii. being attached to things that belong to one (possessive grasping)
From these three follow all the other delusions such as aversion or hatred and ignorance etc.
Suffering
The objects of the first two compassions are sentient beings who are subject to any of the three sufferings. The three sufferings are:
1. thesuffering of suffering
2. the suffering of change
3. the suffering of conditioned existance.
The suffering of suffering is the physical and mental suffering such as sickness, old age etc. This is recognised as suffering even by ordinary worldly beings.
The suffering of change is considered pleasure in the worldly sense and it is a suffering that is not ordinarily recognised as suffering. But if look at closely it is not real happiness and pleasure because it does not increase in pleasure the more you have it. The pleasant feeling that one experiences for a moment itself is the suffering of change; The suffering of conditioned existance is the state of impermanence.
Three causes create four Noble beings. If the cause becomes an object of respect then the result also becomes an object of respect. So Bodhisattvas and Shariputra and Maudhgalyaputra and their qualities are honoured. If the cause is so venerated and important how much more venerated and important is the result.
differing objects of compassion
The nature of compassion is always the same only the objects of compassion differ.
i. all sentient beings under the cycle of birth and death
ii. the above plus all those sentient beings, Pratyekabuddhas and Shravaka Arharts, all those beings who have achieved Hinayana results and noble Bodhisattvas who are also subject to impermanence and change. Thus any being who is impermanent is the object of this compassion.
iii. both the above and bodhisattvas in meditative equipoise, beings who perceive the emptiness of real existance not only in meditation but in post meditation.
He prostrates to the three types of compassion.
There are eleven chapters to the Madhyamikavatara. The first ten chapters deal with the first to tenth Bhumis. The eleventh chapter deals with Buddhahood. The chapters describe the practices and resultant realisations at each stage.
THE BHUMIS
The definition of a Bhumi is explained first. A Bhumi is the spiritual state of knowledge in which the state of compassion and knowledge are combined, that is the non-dual combination of knowledge and compassion. From that state all the other qualities arise. The spiritual ground is the state of combination fo those two things. That is the mental state on which all the other qualities rest.
When we mention that a practitioner has reached a certain Bhumi, that Bhumi is the spritiual ground or in Tibetan /sa/ which means ground or earth. This means the state or knowledge of that practitioner in which the realisation of ultimate emptiness and the mind or sense of compassion is combined together. That state of mind is in a sense the non-duality of compassion and the understanding of emptiness and it is on the basis of this that all the other mental qualities arise. All other qualities of the Bodhisattva arise from this quality of non-dual combination of knowledge and emptiness and so it is the spiritual ground from which the practitioners qualities come. So a Bhumi is the spiritual ground. This does not refer to the body of the Bodhisattva nor any physical level that a Bodhisattva reaches on attaining the first Bhumi. Rather it is the mental state on which all the other qualities rest.
the first bhumi
In the case of the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi, the name of the first Bhumi is "Very happy" [Rab-tu-'ga'-ba] the one who is very happy, or the joyful one. It is named thus for a number of reasons:
because after attaining this first Bhumi one knows one has gone beyond the limit of the worldly existance as one has become a noble being, an Arya;
one is endowed with the knowledge of direct understanding of ultimate emptiness
because of being endowed with so many spiritual qualities one is able to benefit sentient beings in a much better way and with greater force than earlier
for a practitioner in the paramitayana after one has attained the first Bhumi one has completed one countless eon of practice and two countless eons or ten spiritual grounds need to be completed before becoming a Buddha
a Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi knows that there is no turning back now, but there will be continuous ascent along the line of Bhumis until the final attainment of Buddhahood.
So because of having come closer to the state of Buddhahood and because of being able to benefit sentient beings in a greater way he becomes very happy and so is named as the joyful one.
The Bhumis and the perfections
Usually we talk about six paramitas or six perfections. The sixth perfection - the perfection of wisdom - is further divided into four more perfections: method, power, prayer and transcendental wisdom, which makes ten perfections. These ten perfections are applied to the ten Bhumis. Although a Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi is engaged in all the ten perfections, one particular perfection in this case the perfection of giving is more emphasised. The same process applies to all the levels of Bhumis so that in the second Bhumi the the perfection of moral discipline the second perfection is more emphasised. In this way each Bhumi has its own particular practice of perfection.
The first Bhumi and the practice of prayer
For the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi, apart from the activity of the perfection of giving, one of the main activities is said to be the practice of prayers. A lot of prayers for the sake of sentient beings including dedication prayers are done by the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi. Even though they have been done before the practice of prayer is particularly emphasised on this level of Bhumi. Reciting and visualising throught these prayers, particularly the Batracaria prayer, the prayer of good conduct. This prayer called Badracarya [bzang-po-spyod, pa'i-smon-lam] is one of the main prayers recited by all Tibetan Buddhist practitioners.This is one of the most common prayers. It is a prayer mentioned in the sutra as a prayer said to be recited by the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra and so is also known as the Samantabhadra Prayer. This prayer includes all types of different prayers.
The reason the role of prayer comes here is because in the course of Buddhist practice prayer has a very important role. It is not just limited to a practitioner doing prayers for immediate purposes such as practitioners or monks doing prayers for those who are dead or those who are sick. As is the case with other practices related to mind, the practice of prayer has also a very great impact or effect on the course of ones achievement or on the result that will occur later. This is why after attaining the state of Buddhahood an enlightened being is said to be always in meditative equipoise even when we know a Buddha is walking or eating or engaged in some external work which does not need meditation, but while he or she is engaged in these external activities he still remains in meditative equipoise. This means that all his actions are not directly motivated at that time. This is possible because in the course of his practice as a Bodhisattva he or she already accomplished so much in the practice of prayer that by the time he or she becomes a Buddha this practice of prayer also becomes accomplished and whatever was prayed for or wished for will become effective at the time of attaining Buddhahood.
So we say that when a certain disciple is being benefited by a Buddha this is the result of two things:
one cause is the karmic link formed in the mental continuum of that particular disciple
the practice of prayer accomplished by the Buddha
It is a result of the practitioner's prayers that he would be of benefit to all sentient beings without having to exert any effort, that at the time of Buddhahood he will be able to accomplish that task of benefitting without making any efforts. So the practice of prayer becomes important in that sense also. So among the ten perfections there is also the perfection of prayer. This is applied to the Bodhisattva on the eigth Bhumi, but it is already done with great force by the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi.
The first Bhumi and the objects of abandonement
A Bodhisattva who is engaged in the practice of giving and in the practice of prayer and who remains always joyful is known as the Bodhisattva of the first Bhumi. As soon as he attains this Bhumi he will then always be called a Bodhisattva and he is also born in the lineage of the Tathagata, the lineage of the Buddha, and he is able to get rid of three objects of abandonment of application. These are
self grasping
grasping of false moral discipline and practices
doubt
As soon as a person becomes a Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi then he will be able to cut off these three objects of abandonment. As a result of his inner understanding this Bodhisattva will be able to perform the miracle of moving or shaking one hundred worlds of existance. One hundred worlds indicates the limit of the power he acquires as a result of his understanding. He will be able to suppress the other grounds one after another, in other words he will definately be able to ascend the other higher Bhumi one after another. All the other paths or entrences to the lower realms of the worldly existance will cease at the time of the attainment of his or her first Bhumi. All positions or levels related to a common being will also come to an end at the time of the attainment of this first Bhumi.
Comparison of Bhumis and hinayana levels
This Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi is likened to the eighth Aryan being in the Hinayana context. The Hinayana result consists of eight types which are the four preliminary paths or entering paths and the four stages of the result. The four results begin with the Stream Enterer and end with Arhartship. The four that precede the four results are known as the Four Enterers.
Stream Enterer for instance is not one of the four enterers, it is one of the four results, but Stream Enterer also is preceded by the level of an enterer which is the entering or preliminary path of the Stream Enterer. In the same way there is the Enterer of the Returner and the actual Returner, the Enterer of the Non Returner and the actual Non Returner, and finally the Enterer of Arhat and the actual Arhat.
The Enterer of Returner is the same as the advanced result of the Stream Enterer. When we talk about the different levels of knowledge, as in the case of first Bhumi or Stream Enterer for instance, the sixteen moments of knowledge are mentioned in this context. An Arya is said to be endowed with sixteen moments of knowledge. Of these fifteen moments of knowledge are part of the process of abandoning the objects of abandonement and these are said to be on the entering path, or the path of entering. When one acquires the sixteenth knowledge then one has reached the result, which in this case is the result of Stream Enterer. The path before the result of Stream Enterer is called its enterer and when the result is attained then it is called Stream Enterer.
After becoming a Stream Enterer then one will still go further in the practice. When one engages in the practice for the sake of attaining the second result which is the Returner, then at that time, while one is a Stream Enterer, because one is directed towards the attainment of the second result one is also called an enterer of the Returner. So in this way there are four results and four enterers. When we talk about eight Aryas then these four enterers are also counted and this gives rise to eight. When it refers to the eighth Arya this refers to the Shravaka practitioner abiding in the result of Stream Enterer. In the Hinayana practice when someone attains the result of Stream Enterer then that Arya has already abandoned the self grasping, the grasping of inherent self. (S)he attains the knowlege of selflessness or the knowledge of the emptiness of the person. In the same way when a Bodhisattva reaches the first Bhumi her or his qualitities of abandonement and understanding can be likened to that of the Stream Enterer in the case of Hinayana practice. So in Hinayana practice what you would expect of the eighth Arya is what in Mahayana practice you would expect of the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi.
The Bodhisattva of the first Bhumi even though he is endowed with the first level of understanding of the ultimate Bodhicitta he is able to overcome all the Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas through the power of the merits. The Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi is endowed with such great merits that through these merits (s)he is able to tramscend the qualities of the Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas. In other words if they were to compete in respect to the quality of their merit then the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi is much greater than the other two. This is because the practice of the method aspect, such as loving kindness, compassion and bodhicitta, have been practiced with such great force by the Bodhisattva before attaining the first Bhumi during the path of accumulation and the path of application that though the shravaka arhat and the pratyekabuddhas arhat have reached the ultimate result in their own practice, with respect to the method practice they have no attainment in comparison to the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi. Not only is he or she much superior to the states of Shravaka Arhat and Pratyekabuddha Arhat through their qualities of merit s(he) is also able to increase his or her merits further. Then when she later attains the seventh Bhumi then her state of quality of knowledge will also become superior to the states of the Shravaka Arhat and Pratyekabuddha Arhat.
This is applicable to the level of understanding and to the level of abandonement of objects of abandonement with respect to the shravaka arhat and the pratyekabuddha arhat and the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi. One may wonder who may be superior or greater with respect to the understanding of ultimate emptiness between a Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi and the shravaka arhat. Because the shravaka arhat may be in the Hinayana tradition but she has reached the ultimate result of her own system and practice. A shravaka Arhat is an arhat or foe destroyer and is sometimes called a Buddha, an inferior Buddha, so such an arhat is an enlightened being who has got rid of samsara.
The Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi may be a noble being, and arya, but she is still in the process of her practice, she has not reached the ultimate state of her Mahayana practice. So the question is whose qualities are greater, and whose qualities of abandonement are greater, who has abandoned more? The quality of understanding and the quality of abandonement are in respect to the accumulation of wisdom. When it it is analysed how much knowledge these two aryas have acquired then of course the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi has abandoned more than the shravaka arhat and has gained more knowledge than the shravaka arhat. But the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi is still not able to get rid of the grasping of characteristics. This is not grasping of inherent existance but the grasping of non inherent existence. Grasping of things not in an inherent way but the grasping of their own characteristics, without having any attachement to their inherent existance. This kind of grasping of characteristics is still there and it will continue until the state of the eighth Bhumi.
When a Bodhisattva reaches the seventh Bhumi, while having the knowledge of understanding ultimate emptiness, at the same time she will also have an ability and energy by which in the next Bhumi she will be able to get rid of the entire grasping of characteristics. So it is only at the time of the seventh Bhumi that her mind and understanding of ultimate emptiness will become much superior to the knowledge of the shravaka arhat and pratyekabuddha arhat. So that when one becomes a Bodhisattva of the seventh Bhumi then one's knowledge surpasses the qualitites of the shravaka and pratyekabuddhas with respect to the quality of knowledge. Before that at the time of the first Bhumi he is not superior with respect to the accumulation of wisdom but is superior with respect to the accumulation of merit.
Comparison of Bodhisattvas and Arhats in respect to the two selflessnesses
In this respect then the issue of the two selflessness also arises. According to the direct explanation in the Abhisamayalamkara by Maitreya, for example, the noble beings on the Hinayana result, that is the shravaka and pratyekabuddha arhats, do not realise the second selflessness, which is the selflessness of dharmas or phenomena. We have the selflessness of a person and the selflessness of phenomena. The selflessness of a person is the same as the state of being free from self grasping which is its opposite. The opposite of the selflessness of phenomena is the grasping the inherent existance of phenomena in general.
Of these two knowledges of selflessness the Hinayana arhats have only the understanding of the selflessness of a person not the understanding of the selflessness of phenomena, whereas the Bodhisattva has the knowledge of both these selflessnesses. So the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi is superior with respect to knowlege also due to having some understanding of the additional selflessness which is the selflessness of phenomena. But according to the direct explanation of the Madhyamika texts the shravaka arhat and the pratyekabuddha arhats also realise the selflessness of phenomena, so they also realise both selflessnesses, so this superiority of knowledge between them and the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi based on a difference between understanding only one rather than both the selflessnesses does not exist.
In the Abhisamayalamkara it is said that Arhats realise only one selflessness because the selflessness of aggragates, the understanding of ones own aggregates as empty of inherent existance is considered as the selflessness of a person in Abhisamayalamkara, whereas in the Madhyamika texts that is counted as the selflessness of phenomena. So it is only a difference in the giving of a name of the emptiness of aggregates. The emptiness of one's own aggregates is called as the selflessness of a person in the Abhisamayalamkara, whereas in the Madhyamika texts it is called the selflessness of phenomena. Whichever it is called the Shravaka Arhat has to definitely realise the selflessness of one's own aggregates. Without realising the selflessness of one's own aggregates one is not able to realise the selflessness of a person. Since the understanding of both these selflessnesses is there with respect to both Arhats, there is no difference in the number of selflessnesses the Bodhisattva of the first Bhumi realises compared to the arhats' realisation. However there is a difference when it comes to the explanation of the selflessness of phenomena. In the context of Hinayana arhats the selflessness of phenomena is limited and confined only to the selflessness of ones own aggregates, whereas in the Mahayana it is wider being related to all phenomena including external phenomena. One's own five aggregates constitute a small part of all phenomena, most phenomena are external, so the understanding of selflessness of a Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi is in relation to the understanding of the selflessness of all phenomena. In this way the knowledge of the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi is greater than the knowledge of the two arhats. It is not said here that the Bodhisattva is much more superior because the criterion of superiority is made when one is able to get rid of the grasping of characteristics, which a Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi has not been able to attain as only a Bodhisattva onthe seventh Bhumi can acquire this capacity. So only when one reaches the seventh Bhumi is one regarded according to this text as superior to the other arhats in respect to knowlege as well as merit.
The first Bhumi and the outer appearance of giving
In the first Bhumi the perfection of giving is particularly practiced and with greater force than the other perfections. Ordinary people are not able to know whether a person has attained the first Bhumi as the inner realisation of a Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi can not be seen. But because the outer practice is so much accomplished in the practice of giving there will be no doubt about the attainment of such a Bodhisattva when seeing the practice of the perfection of giving with regard to cutting and giving one's own flesh. When a Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi practices giving his own flesh to someone one there is no pain or suffering but only a feeling of indifference towards one's own flesh, and satisfaction in fullfiling the need of the recipient. By these outer behaviours one is able to understand that there is the knowledge of the first Bhumi within that person. It is the external contacts with such a person, that allow those who are By these outer behaviours someone, who is not in contact with the inner understanding of such a person, is able to understand that there is the knowledge of the first Bhumi within that person.
It is the external contacts with such a person, that allow those who are not in contact with the inner understanding of the Bodhisattva, to have the inferential knowledge about that being being on the first Bhumi.
the perfection of giving
The perfection of giving is mentioned here in the context of other practices. The perfection of giving is not only a practice of the Bodhisattva but it is a practice which is helpful to other practitioners. It is beneficial even in the worldly sense. Most people or beings wish to gain wealth or possessions and wish to gain happiness and pleasure. The happiness of human beings for example will not be there if they do not have wealth and possessions in the worldly sense. Because Buddha knows that the result of the possession of wealth comes from the perfection of giving, so Buddha dealt with the perfection of giving first. It is the first of the six or ten perfections, because it is so directly connected with the happiness of beings and particularly the happiness of human beings which depends so much on possessions which will not arise without having the cause of the activity of giving. If you have not engaged in the practice of giving then you will not have the result of having possessions. The result of having possessions is only dependent on the perfection of giving.
Thus the perfection of giving in respect to the inferior practitioner is important as that practitioner is the one who aspires to happiness and pleasure in the worldly existence itself. With respect to the mediocre practitioner its ultimate result is also dependent on the practice of giving.
[discontinuity of tape and addition from notes
Generally there are three factors of giving:
the object to be given,
the person given to and
the person who gives
There are three things to give:
dharma
fearlessness
material things
Of these giving the dharma is the best kind of giving.
.............then you can help. It is because of engaging in such activities as giving that one will encounter different types of people, and in the course of such activities one will also come in contact with those people who will show one the path to liberation, the path to go beyond the sufferings of samsara.........
Giving is also a practice necessary for self liberation. Of course it is a practice which is very indispensible for the practice of a Bodhisattva. Whether someone is a compassionate one or not compassionate the resultant things like possessions, worldly goods, happiness and the resultant state of liberation and of course the ultimate of enlightenment all depend on this practice of the perfection of giving. So within the six paramitas the paramita of giving is considered as most important by the Buddha and mentioned in the beginning.
In the case of Bodhisattva it is said that those on the Bodhisattva practice, particularly those on the first Bhumi so much enjoy the practice of giving that there will only be happiness and pleasure within their mind whenever they have the oportunity of engaging in the practice of giving. Of course the practice of giving is not limited to the giving of material things. The best practice of giving is said to be the practice of giving dharma or the truth or of showing the path. Then we have the perfection of the giving of fearlessness, and then the giving of material things. So the giving is of three types, the giving of:
dharma
fearlessness
material things
Giving teachings is one form of giving of dharma. Giving refuge or protection to people who are going through suffering or difficulties of not having protection is called the giving of fearlessness. The giving of material things is the most common form of giving., like giving food and clothes to needy people. The giving of dharma is regarded as the most important one and it is specially illustrated in many of the Jataka tales for instance of the Buddha, where the Buddha in many of his previous lifetimes as a king or a merchant or as an ordinary being, went through so many difficult tasks and hardships just for the sake of receiving one word of dharma or one word of the path, or the teaching of that time. These are illustrated in the context of how the giving of the dharma is important and how it was considered as important by the Bodhisattva on the path of practice.
All types of giving will not become the perfection of giving because the sanskrit word for perfection - paramita literally means something which has gone beyond. So every practice of giving is not a practice which has gone beyond. According to Abhidharma and Madhyamika the meaning of paramita is that which has gone beyond or that which has become accomplished, so the actual paramita or perfection is the qualities that a Buddha has. The accomplishment of the perfection of giving or the accomplishment of the practice of moral discipline at the time of Buddhahood are said to be the actual perfection or the actual paramita. Because at that time the practices have become ultimate and accomplished and one has gone beyond all the levels of training and has reached the ultimate limit. The practice of giving which a Bodhisattva engages in is also called the paramita, - as for example the dana paramita or the perfection of giving, - because it serves or functions as a cause of the ultimate accomplishment.
The practice of giving of an ordinary person which is done for the aim of achieving something in this world, or the aim of receiving something in return in this very lifetime is not called the perfection of giving. This is just a virtuous action of giving but not the perfection of giving.
The perfection of Giving is also further divided into two types:
the worldly perfection of giving and
the transworldly perfection of giving
The worldly perfection of giving is that practice of the perfection of giving in which the Bodhisattva has not been able to get rid of all the grasping of characteristic. While being engaged in the practice of giving the Bodhisattva is still attached in the sense that one sees all the three factors of giving. One grasps at the characteristics of the three factors of giving. These three factors are:
the object of giving, whatever is being given,
the person given to, the person or being to whom that thing is given
the one who gives
This is called the three factors of giving and it is applicable to all other practices, that is all the following paramitas. They are called the three accompaniments or the three attributes. /'Khor gsum/ in Tibetan.
For example, if while one is giving one has a grasping towards the characteristic of the thing that one is going to give that means that one sees that object or one is attached to the characteristic of the object of giving. The same thing is applicable with respect to the person to whom one is giving or to the person who is giving. Of course in the case of a common being one cannot help having the attachement to these three factors, which means that one will grasp at what one is going to give, and one will focus one's mind on whom one is giving to, and one will look upon oneself as the one who is giving. So as a result of the practice of this giving there is an obvious, immediate sense of delusion in the form of pride. In the case of Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi although there is no self grasping, no grasping of these three factors as inherently existant, there is the grasping of these three factors as mere characteristics. In other words when a Bodhisattva of the first Bhumi remains in the post meditation session, called the subsequent attainment, and engages in various activities such as of giving, then of course he will see the person he is giving to, and the object. However he is not attached like a common being in the sense of being attached to the inherent existence of these things but attached only to the characteristics.
This grasping of characteristics will be there sometimes but sometimes may not be there especially at the time of meditative equipoise. The practice of giving without being attached to the characteristics is called the transworldly perfection of giving, and the practice in which one is attached to these characteristics is called the worldly perfection of giving. These two types are both applicable with respect to the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi. The state of mind of the Bodhisattva, remaining in this way results in the physical body becoming luminous and bright with light. Just as a moon will dispel the coarse darkness in the world, in the same way the knowledge of the first Bhumi will be able to dispel the thick darkness of delusions. This means that there are still a lot of objects of abandonment that this Bodhisattva has to get rid of, but the thicker darkness of delusion, the delusions that are the root causes of samsara have been cut off. So as a result of attaining the first Bhumi one does not have to be reborn in samsara as a result of delusions.
In the course of ones practice taking rebirth in samsara is necessary in order to reach higher in the other Bhumi, because without being involved with the benefit of beings, the Mahayana practice will not become better. One does not have the delusions but one has what is called the undefiled mental states, and the undefiled action. One may still be performing a lot of actions of body, speech and mind and since they are not motivated by hatred anger and ignorance, may not be called deluded actions but are undeluded due to being motivated by undeluded states of mind. As a result of these one will be able to take rebirth in samsara at ones own will. One will have the freedom to decide where one is going to take birth and where one will be able to benefit most. So in this way one will take rebirth and remain in samsara and then work for the benefit of sentient beings. The Arya Bodhisattva will remain in samsara like a lotus flower which grows out of mud. The lotus flower is not stained with mud although growing in the mud and in the same way the Bodhisattvas remain in samara and work for the benefit of sentient beings but are not stained and do not have the faults of samsara. This is the end of the first chapter.
the second bhumi
The second chapter deals with the Bodhisattva on the second Bhumi, whose practice in respect to the ten perfections emphasises the perfection of moral discipline. Moral conduct is the avoidance of the performance of non virtuous activity. It is because this Bodhisattva's practice of moral discipline is so pure and accomplished that he is able to abandon completely the faults related to non virtuous activity. He will be able to abandon these faults even in dreams. He is not only able to avoid engaging in non virtuous activity, he will not even dream of committing non virtuous activity due to his advanced practice of the perfection of moral discipline.
The main activity that he will be engaged in is the performance of the ten virtuous actions, of course without being attached to the inherent existance of all these practices. Although the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi is also engaged in the ten virtuous actions, but this practice is much more advanced on the second Bhumi. His state of moral discipline becomes much more pure than the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi. In the case of the practice of moral discipline during the meditative equipoise he is not attached to the three factors of moral discipline. So that practice of moral discipline is called the transworldly perfection of moral discipline.
There is also no grasping in the sense that one is attached to remaining in very good moral discipline, for if there is a sense of grasping and a sense that one thinks that one is engaged in a very good moral discipline then that type of moral discipline will not become perfect moral discipline. Although you may be engaged in good moral discipline, like the saving of a life which is the virtuous action of protecting life which is opposite to killing a being, nevertheless if you have some clinging to the fact that you are doing this good thing, then the whole practice of moral discipline will become impure. Although there is merit there, in this case it will not become perfect or pure for a Bodhisattva.
The practice of moral discipline is necessary. Even in the sense of worldly practice there are some cases in which, for some sentient beings may be born in lower realms, but they may have a lot of posessions as in the case of some Naga beings for instance. Although Naga beings belong to the realm of animals some Nagas and some other animals are found to have a better access to a better way of living and have access to more materials. But that is the result of practicing giving in their previous lifetimes. But because they did not engage in the practice of moral discipline they were born as animals.
Once this happens then in the lower realm whatever virtuous actions one has collected in previous lifetimes will all ripen in the form of result of temporary material gain. Because one is born as an animal one will not be able to accumulate more merit and so it will be an end to whatever merit one has collected earlier. So the continuation of your performance of merit will not be there. Rather it will come to an end. In this way your births will go down and down. In other words you will be reborn in lower and lower realms. This is because you were not engaged in the practice of moral discipline.
Although one is doing a very good practice of giving, if one lacks this practice of moral discipline there may be good results for some time but it will not coninue. It is like losing the capital money as well as the interest. If you lose both then you do not have any money to put into a new or improved business. In the same way when you are born in the lower realm, the result of the previous virtue is exhausted and you cannot create new virtuous activity with ever decreasing result. So the practice of moral discipline becomes important even in relation to the rebirth one will take in samsara.
So it is advised here that when one is in one's independent state, meaning that one has the necessary qualities and necessary process of thinking of knowing what is right and wrong, if then one is not able to make use of this oportunity then once you fall into the abyss of lower realms then there will be no other help or protector that can take you out of that. For this reason the Buddha after teaching on the perfection of giving, taught next on the perfection of moral discipline. If all other qualities are produced and increased on the field of the practice of moral discipline then there will be an incessant flow of result or fruit. If good crops grow on fertile land then there will be continuous crops. If the plants grow and increase then the fruit will increase too. It is the same with the other qualities. If you have a firm and stable moral discipline then other qualities can flourish. The importance of moral discipline is emphasised again and again. Here it is emphasised that this practice is very necessary, for even though you have the practice of giving if you do not have the moral discipline then it won't be of much use in the long run. This makes it very important.
Even in the practice of giving and in all the other perfections there are set rules in every activity you do. This code of discipline, which includes these sets of rules in whatever you do, is also a part of moral discipline. So without having some kind of rule under which you act then your activity will not become perfect and so the practice of moral discipline is also stressed in this way. It is also said that there is no better practice other than the practice of moral discipline for the attainment of all the three results of the three types of practitioners:
the higher realms and the happiness for common beings
the liberation of shravakas and pratyekabuddhas
the ultimate enlightenment of the Bodhisattva
all of these depend on the practice of moral discipline.
Finally it is said that an auspicious occasion, or an auspicious thing does not remain simultaneously with an inauspicious thing. Just as an ocean does not remain together with dead bodies for long, in the same way the one with the pure moral discipline, or the practice of perfect moral discipline will not remain together with the transgression of moral discipline. So a Bodhisattva on the second Bhumi who is engaged in the very perfect practice of moral discipline will not be engaged in those activities which transgress the moral discipline because the acts of perfect moral discipline and acts lacking in moral discipline do not remain together.
In the same way as before, if one is attached to the three characteristics of moral discipline then that is the worldly moral discipline. If one is not attached to the three characteristics then it is the transworldly perfection of moral discipline. Because the Bodhisattva on the second Bhumi has very perfect, advanced and accomplished practice of moral discipline as a result of which she is not affected, or does not have the stains of immoral activity, she is likened to the moon rays of an autumn season, in which there will not be any stain of clouds. As the moon rays will be able to dispel the unpleasent feeling of heat. in the same way the practice of moral discipline in the second Bhumi can dispel the agony, pain or suffering in the mind which arises as a result of wrong or immoral activity. In other words the sense of repentence, the pain which a person usually has after doing something wrong is non-existent there.
Questions
Q. Is it possible to ever come backup after ending up in lower rebirth?
A. As a result of continuous non-virtuous action, you will take rebirth in lower and lower realms. However, it is not a case of hopelessness because every being is enowed with the clarity of mind i.e. the nature of Buddha - Tathagatagarbha. Because of this reason, while one is being reborn in many different forms, there are certainly instances of coming in contact with beings or certain things by which then there is a possibility of growing some kind of virtuous action within the mind. It is not the final thing to say that if you don't do virtuous deeds then you will fall down and down and then there will be no chance. It does not mean that there will be no opportunity of coming up, of course there is. But this is not a good enough reason to ignore whether your actions at the moment are good or bad. You may go down and then come up, but this will take a long time. This is not the right way rather you should engage in good activities, and in this way go up.
Q. When you give something or do a kindness, is there any difference to the quality of the giving depending upon whom you give to, or is the quality only in the gesture of giving. For example if I give a gift to the Dalai Lama is that better than my making a gift to Jane and is that better than my making a gift to the dog?
A: There are some what we call better objects or fields of giving, such as a noble person or a Buddha. The best field is a Buddha and then those on higher realisations. Other beter fields are people who are poor or destitute. If you give something to them it is more meritorious than giving something to someone who has it already. You parents who have been very kind to you in this lifetime and your teachers who have shown you the right path, are also a excellent fields of giving. There are certain fields of giving that do make a difference in the amount of merit you accumulate although the object that you are giving to them is the same.
Q. Why would there be more merit in giving something to someone who has accomplished everything, like a Buddha?
A. If you give to a Buddha with the thought that he has nothing and you are giving to him out of compassion then this may not be a proper merit of giving. But you can accumulate great merit if you give something to a superior realised person in the form of an offering. There is a difference in making an offering to a superior person and giving something to a needy person. Of course both will come in the context of the perfection of giving. When you give to someone who is enlightened it is not because he is in need and you fullfill that need it is because your practice of giving in your mind has improved. As I think we dealt with earlier the perfection of giving is more practiced and established in the mental plane. It is involved with the motivation and the mind of giving. It is not the actual action of giving things to people. Of course the actual practice is motivated by the mind, but the mental state of giving to people should be perfect, advanced and genuine.
Q. Is it possible for loving kindness to directly arouse Bodhicitta?
A. Usually in the course of practice we always have to have the compassion first, because the compassion is somehow the other side of loving kindness. They are quite similar in the way of thinking, just that one is wishing happiness and if you wish happiness then naturally you won't wish that being to have suffering. So that wishing of not having suffering will naturally come after loving kindness. So we do not directly connect loving kindness and bodhicitta, compassion definitely comes in between.
Q. Once a first Bhumi Bodhisattva is able to get rid of the grasping of inherent existance of objects but he still has the grasping of the characteristics of things. Are the characteristics of things non-inherently existent?
A. Of course they do not exist inherently. Not only characteristics but all things do not exist inherently. It is not a question of whether the object is inherently existant or not. What we mean by being attached to the characteristics is that there is mere grasping of the shape and the colour but without any grasping as it being inherently existant. First of all there is the grasping for example of a cup as inherently existant; then there is the grasping of the cup as not inherently existant - what we call mere grasping; then there is no grasping of the cup at all just the awareness of the shape and colour of the cup and then finally there is no appearance of the cup at all.
The cup of course does not inherently exist, ultimately there is no cup at all. But sentient beings grasp the cup as inherently existant. Then at a certain stage there is a time when a being grasps the cup, but not as inherently existant. That is called grasping the characteristics, by characteristic we mean the cup without inherent existance. Even to the mind of an ordinary being there still are the characteristic. It does not mean that if we grasp at the cup then we don't see the characteristic of the cup. When the mental state of perception or discrimination is described it is mentioned as the mental state that is aware of the characteristics of the thing, and does not add anything.
Q. Does it have to do with direct perception of the cup.
A. It is not really direct perception because there still is the conceptual thought in the Bodhisattvas on the lower Bhumis. Of course when it comes to seeing something with the eye consciousness of the Bodhisattva, then like a common being's eye consciousness there is direct perception without conceptual thought. But the grasping of inherent existence as well as mere characteristics is done by conceptual thought. So the Bodhisattvas on these Bhumis may have conceptual thought but they do not have the grasping of inherent existence. They only have the grasping of characteristics without inherent existance.
Q. Did you say that is called mere grasping? Is that the same as subtle grasping?
A. It differs on the context. It is subtle compared to the common grasping but it may be gross compared to the more subtle grasping of the higher levels.
Mere grasping is just a grasping, without self, without any concept of inherent existance. It goes up to the seventh Bhumi and the eighth Bhumi is without that also.
Q. What is meant by the cup not being there, is the emptiness of the cup permanent?
A. That is in relation to the ultimate truth. Iin relative truth of course the cup is there. The cup is there without any inherent existance and when in the course of one's practice one comes to know directly that the cup has no inherent existance, then one has realised the emptiness of the cup. It is the stage where the Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi understands the emptiness of the cup and so in the post meditation session sees the cup's colour and shape but not with the inherent existance. Again in the course of further practice he will come to know that this mere appearance of cup is also not true. It is also not the actual nature. So finally the appearance of cup will also disappear. But when it comes to the emptiness of cup that is in the context of realising emptiness in the ultimate sense and so we do not distinguish that as being permanent or impermanent. All of those things become conceptual things so the division between permanent and impermanent also does not remain at that time. In other words we do not say that the emptiness of the cup is permanent or impermanent.
Of course even if someone is in meditative equipoise it is still possible to bring that person a cup of tea, as that is projected from the relative perspective. But the fact that everything looks very real is the result of a long time of previous attachment and mistaken conceptions.
|
