Sample
#1: Geshe Jampa Gyatso's commentary on verse 6.8c of
Chandrakirti's Supplement to [Nagarjuna's] 'Treatise on the Middle
Way'
May 3-4, 2000
© Geshe Jampa Gyatso & FPMT Inc. 2000
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination
(Tibetan text page 144) says:
Chandrakirti says:
If that were to arise from that,
there would not exist any of
the qualities.
[6.8c]
QUESTION: Through what reason is this non-production from self of
things ascertained?
REPLY: While being produced if that, the sprout, were to arise from
that, the agent of the action of production, there would not exist
any of the special qualities which must occur in arising thus because
the self-entity of the sprout has already been attained at the time
of the former cause [the seed].
If the sprout were to exist already at the time of the seed
what special qualities would arise at the time of the sprout? This is
the meaning of Chandrakirti’s saying: “If that were to arise
from that, there would not exist any of the qualities.” This refutes
production from the same entity. In other words, the production of a
sprout is its arisal from the planting of a seed whereas if the result,
the sprout, were to exist at the time of its cause, the seed, there
would be no reason for the sprout to be produced.
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination says:
Regarding this, the Samkyas [claim] that mutually different
individual causes and conditions have a single shared result. And,
moreover, causes and conditions indispensably involve the unitary
principal which is of a single nature. Therefore, that which is the
nature of barley, the cause, is also the nature of water, manure,
and so forth, the conditions. And, similarly, the nature of a sprout
and the nature of its causes and conditions are asserted as being
here and being there [since] such is asserted as the nature of all
transformations.
The Samkhyas say that causes and conditions are of a single
nature. Among the twenty-five objects of knowledge that they assert,
the first and last are not transformations, i.e., results, whereas the
other twenty-three are transformations. They are a single nature because
although being here and there they mutually cooperate with each other.
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 144-5)
says:
Therefore, since they merely assert seed and sprout to
be mutually different, they do not claim that a sprout is produced
from a sprout. However, in propounding that a sprout is produced from
a seed and [the seed’s] nature, the two natures are one. Therefore,
production from its own nature and production of a sprout that exists
non-apparently at the time of the cause is the mode of asserting production
from self.
That a result exists non-apparently at the time of its cause
is the meaning of production from self. Production refers to its actual
appearance. There are two types of sprouts: the apparent and the non-apparent.
An apparent sprout is a manifest sprout while a non-apparent sprout
is the sprout that exists at the time of the seed. The Samkhyas go on
to assert that a clearly apparent sprout is not produced from self,
whereas a non-apparent sprout is produced from self. Therefore, they
say that a non-apparent sprout is produced from self but an apparent
sprout is not produced from self. An apparent sprout is the actual green
sprout that is seen to grow in a field, whereas the non- apparent sprout
is that which exists in the seed under the ground.
In short, while our system does not say that a cause, such as a barley
seed, contains a barley sprout, the Samkhyas says that it does although
it is not yet seen. To debate this assertion one can posit, for example,
that in the body of a human being there is the potency to be reborn
as a sheep. One can then ask the Samkhyas whether a sheep exists in
the human being’s body saying that it must because if the potency
exists the result exists. One can also say to the Samkhyas: “Do
you have a tail? Do you have horns? You should accept that you do because
the tail and horns of a sheep exist in you in a non- apparent way.”
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 145)
says:
Some specific Samkhyas do not propound production but
assert that from a cause the previously non- apparent is later apparent;
however, the meaning is the same. By this, the generality and instances
are asserted to be the same entity and are also such. However, the
Buddhists’ assertion that thing and pot are the same entity
is not at all similar. Thus, if everything which is the entity or
nature of a sprout were to exist at the time of the seed, even a apparent
sprout which is a different object from the entity of sprout would
not be feasible. Therefore, at the time of the cause not only do the
nature or entity of the sprout exist, but the sprout necessarily exists
as well. Therefore, at that time, it is utterly purposeless to it
being produced again after it has [already] been established.
Within the Samkhya school there are two subdivisions: the
theistic and non-theistic. One subdivision says that the sprout is not
produced but becomes apparent later on after not having been apparent
at the time of its cause. Our own system says that whether you Samkhyas
say that a sprout is produced at the time of its cause and later becomes
apparent or that it is not produced at the time of its cause but later
becomes apparent the meaning is the same. Lama Tsongkhapa says that
the Samkhyas’ assertion that the generality and instances are
one entity is completely different from the Buddhists’ assertion
that thing and pot are one entity. For the Samkhyas the partless generality
is one nature and all the instances that are the nature of the partless
generality are mutually one nature. For example, they say that a horse
and donkey are mutually one nature, a pillar and pot are mutually one
nature, a man and a woman are mutually one nature, and so forth. The
Buddhist schools say that thing and pot are one entity but a pot is
a distinct instant of thing. Also a pillar is a distinct instant of
thing but a pillar and a pot are not mutually one nature, a horse and
a donkey are not mutually one nature, and so forth. For this reason
there is a great difference between the assertions of the Samkhyas and
the Buddhist schools.
The Samkyas say that a sprout exists at the time of its cause. Our system
says that if a sprout exists at the time of the seed it would be impossible
for an apparent sprout which is different from the entity of sprout
to exist. In other words, if the nature of the sprout exists at the
time of the cause what kind of apparent sprout exists that is different
from the sprout? Such an apparent sprout is not feasible.
Our own system says that the sprout having already been produced there
is no purpose to it being produced again. In other words, since the
sprout already exists at the time of the seed there is no purpose to
it being produced again.
Sample
#2: Geshe Jampa Gyatso's commentary following from verse 6.28 of Chandrakirti's
Supplement to [Nagarjuna's] 'Treatise on the Middle Way'
June 1, 2000
© Geshe Jampa Gyatso & FPMT Inc. 2000
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page
182-3) says:
The way the other afflictions, attachment and so forth,
also operate through the confusion which is a conception of true existence
[is as follows]. [Aryadeva’s] Four Hundred Stanzas
(6.10ab) says:
Like the body sense power [abides
in] the body,
Confusion abides in all.
The commentary on this says:
Confusion, because of obscuring to realize them as truths just as
they are, thoroughly operates to exaggeratedly superimpose true existence
on things as their own entity. Because attachment and so forth also
operate to superimpose the distinctions of attractiveness, unattractiveness,
and so forth on only the nature of things which are imputed by confusion,
they operate not differently from confusion. They are also based on
confusion because confusion is the main [affliction].
Attachment and hatred operate on the basis of ignorance.
This is because on the basis of the ignorance that conceives an object
to exist from its own side, attachment superimposes attractiveness on
an object. On the other hand, on the basis of the ignorance conceiving
the object to exist from its own side, hatred superimposes unattractiveness
on an object. Ignorance in this case is the conception apprehending
persons or phenomena to be inherently existent, to exist from their
own side, and to be established by way of their own character. This
conception arises naturally in our continua without relying on reasons.
On this basis, we superimpose attractiveness and unattractiveness on
objects. When several people see a single object, does it appear in
the same way to all of them? It does not, because to some it may appear
as attractive and to others it may appear as unattractive. Why does
this difference arise? With the innate conception of true existence
as a condition, we superimpose attractiveness or unattractiveness on
an object. Due to seeing the object as attractive, attachment arises,
whereas due to seeing it as unattractive, hatred arises.
Ignorance and attachment engage their object in a similar way. For example,
the body is the abode of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body sense
powers. Since the body sense power is the main one, if it is destroyed
all the remaining sense powers are destroyed since they rely on it.
On the other hand, if the eye sense power is destroyed the other sense
powers are not destroyed. Similarly, if a single affliction such as
hatred is destroyed the other afflictions, such as attachment and so
forth, are not destroyed, whereas if ignorance – the support –
is destroyed, all the remaining afflictions – the supported –
are also destroyed. This is the way in which they are support and supported,
whereby they assist each other.
Aryadeva says: “Confusion abides in all.” This means that
the conception of true existence abides in all the afflictions or that
the conception of true existence is the abode of all the afflictions.
The commentary says: “Because attachment and so forth also operate
to superimpose the distinctions of attractiveness, unattractiveness,
and so forth on only the nature of things which are imputed by confusion,
they operate not differently from confusion.” Therefore, it can
be said that the conception of true existence operates in regard to
the observed objects of all the afflictions. First of all, phenomena
are conceived to be truly existent; then, on this basis the other afflictions,
attachment and so forth, superimpose attractiveness and so forth. In
other words, on the basis of phenomena being conceived by ignorance
to be truly existent, the other afflictions superimpose attractiveness,
unattractiveness, and so forth on objects, forms, sounds, and so forth.
Thus, we conceive attractive and unattractive forms, attractive and
unattractive sounds, attractive and unattractive odors, attractive and
unattractive tastes, and attractive and unattractive tangible objects,
on the basis of which we generate respectively attachment or hatred.
The verse from Aryadeva’s Four Hundred Stanzas continues:
“Therefore, when ignorance is destroyed, all the afflictions are
destroyed.”
Student: On the basis of conceiving
an object to exist from its own side, does merely conceiving an object
to be attractive generate attachment or do we have to exaggerate its
attractiveness?
Geshe Jampa Gyatso: An object itself
has some kind of attractiveness, but due to improper mental attention,
we exaggerate its attractiveness. There is a story about a couple in
the past in India. One day the man said to the woman, “You are
becoming more beautiful.” The woman asked, “How is it possible,
in that I am not changing?” The man replied, “I see you
as becoming more and more beautiful every day.” This is due to
projecting beauty on the object, in that although the object does not
change, the perception of it changes. The person who was perceived to
be beautiful in this case was actually missing an eye!
In short, ignorance and attachment are concomitant and are support and
supported.
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 183)
says:
When this is explained [it is as follows]. The statement
“confusion, because of obscuring to realize them as truths just
as they are, thoroughly operates to exaggeratedly superimpose on things
their own entity of truth” indicates that confusion is the conception
of true existence. “Attachment and so forth... operate not differently
from confusion” [means that] they operate concomitant with confusion
and do not operate free from it. The reason for that is as said: “Because
attachment and so forth, also operate to superimpose the distinctions
of attractiveness, unattractiveness, and so forth on only the nature
of things which are imputed by confusion.” Regarding this, that
which superimposes the distinctions of pleasantness and unpleasantness
on objects is improper mental attention – the cause that produces
the two, attachment and hatred. Therefore, it does not indicate the
way in which the two, attachment and hatred, conceive [their objects].
Geshe Jampa Gyatso:
What are the objects of the mode of apprehension of ignorance, attachment,
and hatred?
Student: A hypothetically truly
existent object, a hypothetically truly existent attractive object,
and a hypothetically truly existent unattractive object.
Student: Is the object of the mode
of apprehension of ignorance the referent object of ignorance?
Geshe Jampa Gyatso: In this case,
they are the same. In Awareness and Knowers it says that in the case
of a conceptual consciousness, the object of the mode of apprehension,
the referent object, and the object of engagement are mutually inclusive.
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 183)
says:
Therefore, “on only [the nature of things which
is] imputed by confusion” and so forth means “because
the two, attachment and hatred, operate in dependence on superimposing
pleasantness and unpleasantness which are only inherently existent.”
From among the two types of observed objects of attachment and so
forth, the true existence alone which is imputed by confusion is not
indicated to be an observed object because the observed objects that
are the two types of observed objects of both innate conceptions of
a self are established bases. Attachment and so forth, due to being
concomitant with confusion, also have similar observed objects.
While ignorance – the conception of true existence
– does have an observed object, its object of the mode of apprehension
does not exist. What is the observed object of the conception of a self
of persons? It is the I. What is the observed object of the conception
of a self of phenomena? It is the five aggregates and so forth. From
the point of view of their production, first the conception of a self
of phenomena is produced, then on this basis the conception of a self
of persons is produced. But from the point of view of the realizations
of the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena, first
one realizes the selflessness of persons and then the selflessness of
phenomena. This is mentioned by Lama Tsongkhapa in his Great Exposition
of the Stages of the Path. In short, first there is the production of
the conception of a self of phenomena followed by the production of
the conception of a self of persons because first, in dependence on
seeing the aggregates of a person, the conception of a self of phenomena
is produced, then upon being introduced to the person, the conception
of a self of persons is produced. The reason that first there is the
realization of the selflessness of persons followed by the realization
of the selflessness of phenomena is because one first realizes that
the person is imputed upon the aggregates, whereby the existence of
a self of persons is refuted.
Lama Tsongkhapa says: “From among the two types of observed objects
of attachment and so forth, the true existence alone which is imputed
by confusion is not indicated to be an observed object because the observed
objects that are the two types of observed objects of both innate conceptions
of a self are established bases.” The true existence imputed by
ignorance is not the observed object of attachment, hatred, and so forth
because the two conceptions of a self have their respective observed
objects, [which are existents]. On the other hand, the object of the
mode of apprehension of the two conceptions of a self is non-existent.
Lama Tsongkhapa says: “Attachment and so forth, due to being concomitant
with confusion, also have similar observed objects.” This would
seem to mean that ignorance and attachment, as well as ignorance and
hatred, have five concomitances. One should analyze whether it is enough
to have an observed object in common to be concomitant or whether all
five concomitances are necessary. Ignorance and attachment, or ignorance
and hatred, have the same support, but do they have a common substance
and common time? In general, from the point of view of the lower schools,
two things being concomitant means that they have five points in common.
The observed object of both ignorance and attachment is the same. However,
is their aspect the same? If the Prasangika Madhyamikas ask, what is
the object of the mode of apprehension of the ignorance that is the
conception of true existence, the answer is true existence, inherent
existence, establishment by way of its own character, and existence
from its own side. This is the aspect of ignorance. On the other hand,
the aspect or object of the mode of apprehension of attachment is that
having an aspect of pleasantness, whereas the aspect of hatred is that
having the aspect of unpleasantness. It cannot be said that there is
no object of the mode of apprehension of attachment, since attractiveness
or pleasantness is the object of the mode of apprehension.
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 183)
says:
That having the aspect of desiring an object and that
having the aspect of not desiring but turning away from an object,
which are induced by the two [types of] improper mental attentions,
are [respectively] attachment and hatred.
The aspect of desire is the aspect of pleasantness, whereas
the aspect of hatred is the aspect of unpleasantness. The object-aspect
or object of the mode of apprehension of attachment is exaggerated attractiveness
on a basis that is attractive. The object-aspect or object of the mode
of apprehension of hatred is exaggerated unattractiveness on a basis
that is unattractive.
The object-aspect of attachment is the object of the mode of apprehension
of attachment, whereas the subject-aspect of attachment is the attachment
itself. An object of the mode of apprehension is only posited from the
side of the object; it is not posited from the side of the subject.
On the other hand, aspects are of two types: object-aspects and subject-aspects.
If we say attachment and hatred are not wrong consciousnesses but are
mistaken consciousnesses, what is the consequence? Or if we say that
the conception of true existence is a wrong consciousness but that attachment
and hatred are not, what is the consequence? The object of the mode
of apprehension of ignorance does not exist, but the object of the mode
of apprehension of attachment and hatred does exist. Are they not wrong
consciousnesses? They are not. Are they mistaken consciousnesses? They
are. Therefore, the object of the mode of apprehension of attachment
and hatred exists.
There are two ways of talking about the object, because the exaggeratedly
attractive object does not exist, whereas the attractive object does
exist. In general, attachment is defined as that which has the aspect
of attractiveness of a contaminated object. Hatred is defined as that
which has the aspect of unattractiveness of a contaminated object.
Student: How is mere attractiveness
exaggerated if attractiveness is imputed?
Geshe Jampa Gyatso: Do you not
accept attractiveness?
Student: Yes.
Geshe Jampa Gyatso: What is it?
Student: It is a ripening of karmic
latencies in my continuum.
Geshe Jampa Gyatso: In general,
attractiveness and unattractiveness exist; however, they are imputed
by the subject. This is what depends on the ripening of karmic latencies.
Student: It seems that when an
object appears, it appears as attractive due to karmic latencies and
then the mind starts to embellish its beauty. Is that what happens?
Geshe Jampa Gyatso: Yes; first
the attractive object appears and then we begin to think, “It
is beautiful. It is really beautiful,” and so forth.” However,
some time later we might even start to think about that same object,
“It is ugly. It is really ugly,” and so forth!
In short, the observed objects of ignorance and attachment are the same.
However, their objects of the mode of apprehension are different.
Sample
#3: Geshe Jampa Gyatso's commentary on verses 6.118cd & 6.119 of
Chandrakirti's Supplement to [Nagarjuna's] 'Treatise on the Middle
Way'
January 26, 2001
© Geshe Jampa Gyatso & FPMT Inc. 2001
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page
338) says:
This is explained [as follows]:
If, when suchness is thoroughly
explained,
Others’ scriptures are destroyed
there is no fault. [6.118cd]
If, when suchness is thoroughly explained, that imputed by others’
scriptures is destroyed we are faultless.
Having established the emptiness of phenomena through many
reasonings, the opponents gradually come to lose their own positions
because what is imputed by their scriptures is not able to withstand
the refutations while we ourselves remain faultless, like darkness eliminated
by illumination. For example, it is like if we speak honestly to someone
who is lying, gradually it becomes clear that the other person is lying
while we ourselves remain faultless.
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 338)
says:
[Aryadeva’s] Four Hundred Stanzas says:
This Dharma is not taught
By the tathagatas for the sake of argument.
Nonetheless, it burns counter-dispute
Like fuel is burned by fire.
Fire is ignited for the sake of boiling beverages; it is not for the
sake of [making] ashes and coals; however, those too are taught by
the example to arise incidentally.
Nagarjuna and other masters composed their treatises in
order to benefit sentient beings, however, incidentally, they also cause
the opponents to lose their theses. This is like the fact that although
fire is lit for the purpose of cooking food, boiling tea, and so forth,
and not for the purpose of making ashes and coals, these still arise
incidentally. For example, although we drink tea and eat food for the
purpose of nourishing the body, incidentally other products are created,
although they are not the purpose of eating and drinking!
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 339)
says:
If the Dharma were presented out of attachment to argument,
at that time, without doubt, there would be hatred for the faulty
position of others and subsequent attachment for one’s own position,
due to which conceptions of anger and attachment would not be eliminated.
Why is that?
Any attachment to one’s own
views and, likewise,
Disturbance regarding the views of others
are just conceptions.
Therefore, having completely dispelled
attachment and anger,
Those who completely analyze will quickly
be liberated. [6.119]
In that case, any attachment to one’s own views and, likewise,
a disturbed continuum regarding the views of others’ positions
are just conceptions that are bondage. Thereby, one will be bound
by increasing conceptions of anger and attachment without turning
them away; this is not liberation.
If the masters of the past had composed texts out of attachment
to argument, this would have resulted in anger toward the faulty position
of others and attachment for one’s own position, due to thinking
that what one says is correct. If this were the case, instead of their
texts having the result of eliminating attachment and hatred, they would
act to increase them. However, that attachment and hatred are bondage
is discussed in detail in the Treasury of Knowledge. Ordinary beings
are bound in cyclic existence by the conceptions of attachment and anger;
for example, we have attachment for those who share the same views as
ourselves and hatred for those who have different views. However, we
should not be like this because it just increases our attachment and
hatred more and more, rather than eliminating them. As long as we have
attachment and hatred we will remain bound in cyclic existence.
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 339)
says:
At that time, this Dharma is not presented for the sake
of argument. Therefore, having completely dispelled attachment for
one’s own position and anger for others’ positions, those
who completely analyze by means of reasonings will quickly be liberated.
[Nagarjuna’s] Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning (v. 50) also
says:
Great beings lacking argument,
They have no position.
For those who have no position
How could others’ positions exist?
Great beings, lacking argument, do not think “This
is my position and this is others’ position.”
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 339)
says:
[Aryadeva’s] Four Hundred Stanzas (v. 8.10)
also says:
If you have attachment for your
own position and
Dislike for others’ positions,
You will not go to nirvana.
These two behaviors do not exist in
peace.
As long as one continues to takes sides, one will not achieve
liberation. In other words, if one has attachment for one’s own
position and anger toward others’ positions it will not be possible
to attain peace.
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 339)
says:
The King of Meditative Stabilizations Sutra also
says:
Whoever develops attachment upon
hearing this Dharma and
Develops anger upon hearing the non-Dharma,
These proud ones, overcome by haughtiness,
turn away;
Later, due to the force of pride, they
experience suffering.
“Hearing this Dharma” can mean to hear or listen to Dharma
that pleases us, whereas “Hearing the non-Dharma” is to
hear or listen to Dharma that we do not like. Or it can be understood
to mean that we become happy upon hearing teachings on what to practice
in order to achieve liberation, while we become upset upon hearing teachings
on what it is we need to abandon.
Haughtiness (see Meditation on Emptiness) is a puffing up of
the mind through taking joy and comfort in observing one’s own
good health, youth, beauty, power, signs of long life, prosperity, and
so forth. Haughtiness is one of the secondary afflictions, these being
related to, or close to, the six root afflictions, ignorance, anger,
attachment, pride, and so forth. For example, which of the secondary
afflictions are close to anger? They are belligerence, resentment, spite,
jealousy, and so forth. Haughtiness is close to pride. Pride in the
context of this verse is the pride that is an affliction, not the pride
of tantric practice.
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 339)
says:
It should be understood that the very teaching “If,
having given up taking the side of attachment for and anger toward
one’s own and others’ positions, one does not analyze
with an honest mind, one will be tightly bound to cyclic existence
in dependence on the analytical meditations of tenets” is special
advice given to us by the merciful one.
If one does an analytical meditation that concludes one’s
own position is the best while others’ positions are only faulty,
this will cause one to become even more tightly bound to cyclic existence.
When analyzing the various tenet systems, one should not develop anger
toward others’ tenets. If while analyzing them one finds mistakes
in others’ tenets, one should not develop anger but, instead,
should develop compassion for those who have such tenets. This is special
advice given for our sake.
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 340)
says:
The refutation of production from self up to here is
taught as presenting the selflessness of phenomena. The selflessness
of phenomena that are things is frequently presented, however, there
is also the intention to present the selflessness of phenomena that
are non-things from time to time.
Up to here in the text, the self of phenomena has been presented.
Although the presentation of the selflessness of phenomena is mainly
based on the emptiness of compounded phenomena, from time to time it
is based on the emptiness of uncompounded phenomena.
Sample
#4: Geshe Jampa Gyatso's commentary on verses 12.40-42 of
Chandrakirti'sSupplement to [Nagarjuna's] 'Treatise on the Middle
Way'
June 1, 2000
© Geshe Jampa Gyatso & FPMT Inc. 2000
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page
458) says:
As long as all the worlds
have not progressed to supreme total peace and
As long as space has not been thoroughly
destroyed,
For that long you conquerors, who are
born from the mother wisdom,
due to the
nurse of compassion
Act in this way. Therefore, how could
you possess total peace? [12.40]
The duration of the future lifespan of a conqueror is as long as all
the worlds – those to be subdued – have not progressed
to supreme total peace, that is, as long as they have not become buddhas,
and as long as uncompounded space has not been thoroughly destroyed,
for that long the buddhas born from the mother that is the perfection
of wisdom and entrusted to the nurse of great compassion act in this
way explained before. Therefore, how could you who are like that possess
the peace that is biased?
The buddhas abide as long as space has not been emptied
of migrating beings. The buddha bhagavans are born from the mother-like
perfection of wisdom and are cared for by the nurse-like compassion.
In short, due to the buddhas themselves having compassion they do not
pass beyond sorrow.
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 458-9)
says:
QUESTION: What is the compassion of the buddhas like that
cares for sentient beings for endless periods in order to accomplish
the welfare of all sentient beings?
RESPONSE:
Your mercy for worldly beings –
the family of those very beings who have
eaten
poisoned food
Due to the fault of confusion –
is not like the suffering of a mother
For her son who is pained from having
eaten poison;
Thus, the protectors do not go to supreme
total peace. [12.41]
By the force of the fault of the confusion conceiving true existence,
worldly beings eat with strong adherence to food, that is, the five
desirable objects, thereby becoming the cause for extensive suffering.
Therefore, the mercy you develop for the family – what is mine
– of those very beings who have eaten what is poisoned is not
like the mind of suffering developed by a mother for her only son
who is pained from having eaten poison. Thus, the protectors, the
buddhas, do not go to the supreme total peace that is biased.
Sentient beings have strong adherence to the five desirable
objects due to which they generate attachment and so forth. The five
desirable objects are likened to poisoned food, in that when they are
made use of sentient beings experience suffering. Seeing this, the buddhas
generate great compassion for sentient beings. A mother, ignoring her
own pain, suffers when her only son experiences the pain of having ingested
poisoned food. Due to thinking about her child’s suffering, she
does not think about her own suffering. Similarly, the buddhas, seeing
the suffering of migrating beings, do not enter into the peace that
is one-sided or biased.
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Illumination (Tibetan text page 459)
says:
Because the unskilled
have awarenesses that adhere to things
and non-things,
Suffering is produced from the occasions
of birth and disintegration,
separating
from the pleasant, and meeting with the unpleasant, and
The migrations of the wicked are attained.
Therefore, since the world
thoroughly
becomes an object of great compassion,
Your minds, bhagavans, out of compassion
turn away from peace,
whereby
you do not possess nirvana. [12.42]
Because of that, since those who are not skilled in the meaning of
suchness – having awarenesses that strongly adhere to things
as truly existent – view rebirth as a god and human as existing
due to belief in actions and results, they are definitely afflicted
with the suffering of the occasions of birth and disintegration –
that is, death – and experience the suffering that is produced
through separating from pleasant objects and meeting with unpleasant
objects. Those having an awareness that adheres to the things that
are causes and results as non-existent, possessing wrong view, attain
the migrations of the wicked – that is, the bad migrations of
the hells and so forth – as well as the suffering that was explained
earlier. Therefore, since the beings of the world thoroughly become
objects of great compassion, your minds, bhagavans, out of great compassion
turn away from exertions for a biased peace, whereby you abide in
the world without possessing the nirvana that is a biased peace.
Those who unskilled in suchness, strongly adhering to things,
that is, actions and results, create actions that bring about rebirth
as a god or human being. However, although born in the happy migrations
they still experience the various sufferings of birth, death, separating
from pleasant objects, meeting with unpleasant objects, and so forth.
There are eight types of sufferings mentioned in the teachings on the
Stages of the Path, one of which is the suffering of separation from
pleasant objects, such as our friends, and another of which is the suffering
of encountering the unpleasant.
In addition, those who view actions and results as non-existent commit
negative actions and are reborn in the lower migrations where they also
experience the suffering of birth, death, separating from the pleasant,
encountering the unpleasant, and so forth. For example, we can see that
dogs experience happiness when their master is present and suffer when
separated from him.
