[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

own valid reasoning, because nothing exists in and of itself without
being imputed by terms and concepts. The object of refutation
according to scriptural authority, however, is the grasping at that
object, such as the grasping at the inherent, or true, existence of the
self. Even though it is an object of refutation, that grasping actually
does exist. There is no inherently existent self; however, there is grasp-
ing at the self s inherent existence as if it existed inherently. Therefore,
the object of refutation by reasoning (inherent existence) refers to
something that does not exist, but the object of refutation according
to scriptural authority (grasping at inherent existence) refers to some-
thing that does exist.
Let us say that we want to investigate the emptiness of a particular
form, such as a vase. As we analyze the vase, we must remember that
we cannot perceive its emptiness by negating its very existence. Per-
ceiving the vase s emptiness is not the same as concluding that the
vase does not exist at all. If we refute, or negate, the conventional
55
MIRROR OF WISDOM
existence of the vase, then we have fallen into the extreme position of
the nihilist. We have annihilated the vase s very existence and, as a
result, we are not going to discover its emptiness. So, if we are not
refuting the conventional or nominal existence of form in our search
for emptiness, what is it that we are refuting? What is it that doesn t
really exist? What we are refuting and what does not exist is the inher-
ent existence of form. If we want to hit a target with an arrow we need
to be able to see exactly where that target is. In the same way, to
understand what emptiness is, we must be able to precisely identify
what it is that is being refuted.
REFUTING TOO MUCH AND NOT REFUTING ENOUGH
If we overestimate the object of negation then we will be refuting too
much, but if we underestimate the object of negation we won t be
refuting enough. An example of refuting too much is when we take
conventional existence and inherent existence to be one and the same,
concluding that because phenomena don t exist inherently they must
not exist at all. When we take this position we are denying the exis-
tence of everything and have become nihilists. Remember, conven-
tional existence and true existence do not mean the same thing.
If we deny the existence of everything then we won t be able to
assert the distinction between the two types of phenomena deluded
phenomena (which includes our contaminated karmic actions and delu-
sions, or afflictive emotions) and the liberated aspect of phenomena
(which includes the spiritual paths, the true cessation of suffering and
so forth). We won t be able to talk about the infallible law of karmic
actions and their results because we will be asserting that its existence is
merely a hallucination. If we cannot present the existence of both con-
taminated and uncontaminated phenomena, then we cannot present
the complete structure of the path leading to spiritual liberation.
On the other hand, if we underestimate the object of negation
and don t refute enough, that is as much of a problem as refuting too
much. Certain schools of Buddhism assert only the selflessness of a
person and not the selflessness of phenomena. Other schools assert
both types of selflessness. Within each of the four schools of Buddhist
56
MIND TRAINING, DEVELOPING EMPTINESS
thought Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra and Madhyamaka
we find sub-schools. In the Madhyamaka, or Middle Way, school we
find two major sub-schools, the Svatantrika-Madhyamaka, or
Inference Validators, and the Prasangika-Madhyamaka, or Conse-
quentialists. The Prasangika-Madhyamaka school s presentation of
emptiness is considered the most authentic and it is this presentation
that we are studying. The schools of Vaibhashika, Sautrantika,
Cittamatra and Svatantrika-Madhyamaka all present an assertion of
deluded states of mind that we find in Jamgon Kongtrul Yonten
Gyatso s Treasury of Knowledge, the root text of which is the
Abhidharmakosha.
The Prasangika-Madhyamaka school, however, presents in addi-
tion to these delusions, a subtle form of delusion that the other
schools have not been able to identify the conceptual grasping at
inherent existence. Except for the Prasangika-Madhyamaka, all the
other Buddhist schools assert the inherent existence of phenomena.
They assert that if things don t exist inherently, they can t exist at all.
The Svatantrika-Madhyamikas, who are in the same school as the
Prasangikas, make a distinction between the true existence of phe-
nomena and the inherent existence of phenomena. They say that
things do exist inherently, from their own side, but that they do not
exist truly. Their explanation for this distinction is that things exist
from their own side as well as being posited by thought, or concept.
According to them, a phenomenon exists as a combination of exis-
tence from its own side and of the mental thought imputed onto it.
They don t include the conceptual grasping at inherent existence as a
subtle delusion. Therefore, the Svatantrika-Madhyamaka and other
Buddhist schools, apart from the Prasangika-Madhyamaka, have not
been able to refute enough in order to establish selflessness or empti-
ness. In other words, the object of negation identified in their schools
is inadequate.
There are many people who try to meditate on emptiness, but I
believe that those who really know such meditation are very few. If
you overestimate the object of negation and refute too much, you are
off track, and if you underestimate the object of negation and don t
refute enough, you again miss the point. It s like a mathematical
57
MIRROR OF WISDOM
equation. The text cautions us that we have to be very precise in iden-
tifying what is to be refuted and refute exactly that amount no
more and no less.
HOWINNATE IGNORANCE PERCEIVES SELF AND PHENOMENA
We have seen how the innate form of ignorance is the root cause of
our being in samsara, therefore, we must study how this ignorance
perceives or apprehends its object, be it a person, a person s thoughts
or a physical thing. Naturally, ignorance apprehends its object in a
distorted way, yet how exactly does our innate ignorance perceive
things? It perceives things to exist in and of themselves, from their
own side, by way of their own characteristics and without being
imputed by terms and concepts. However, this is not the way in
which things actually exist. In fact, this kind of existence is a com
-
plete fabrication.
There is a popular Tibetan children s story that illustrates this
point. A lion was always bothering a rabbit, so the rabbit began to
plan a way to get rid of him. The rabbit went to the lion and said,  I
have seen another beast even more ferocious than you. The lion was
outraged by this notion because he felt that he was the king of all the
animals. The rabbit said,  Come with me, I ll show you, and took
the lion to a lake and told him to look into the water. The lion looked
carefully into the water and when he saw his own reflection, he [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]