Four Hundred Verse Treatise Chapters on the Actions of a Bodhisattva's Yoga (Chapters 13 - 16)

Byang-chub sems-dpa'i rnal-'byor spyod-pa bzhi-brgya-pa'i bstan-bcos kyi tshig-le'ur byas-pa, Skt. Bodhisattva-yogacarya-catu:shataka-shastra-karika)

by Aryadeva

translated by Alexander Berzin, 1978
according to the commentary of Gyeltsabjey
(rGyal-tshab rJe Dar-ma rin-chen)









Chapters 1 - 4
Chapters 5 - 8
Chapters 9 - 12
Chapters 13 - 16

* Chapter Thirteen: The Meditations for Refuting (Truly Existent) Cognitive Sensors and Cognitive Objects
* Chapter Fourteen: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting Grasping at Extremes
* Chapter Fifteen: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting Collected Phenomena as Ultimately (Truly Arising)
* Chapter Sixteen: Indicating the Meditations for How to Cause Teachers and Disciples to Gain Certainty (about Voidness)

Thirteen: The Meditations for Refuting (Truly Existent) Cognitive Sensors and Cognitive Objects

(1) You do not see absolutely everything about a vase at the time when you see (its) form. Who would state “(because) the vase (is perceived by) bare (visual) cognition” as a reason (to prove) its (truly existent) reality?

(2) By this very (same) analysis, those with superior intelligence should refute fragrant odors, sweet (tastes), and smooth (tactile sensations as being truly existent and establishing the true existence of physical objects by the bare sensory cognition of them) – all (of them), each one.

(3) Suppose that all (qualities of an object) were to become seen by (the visual cognition that) sees its form. Then, by (the fact that such visual cognition) does not see (that object’s odor – even if you would accept that) it sees its form – how could it not become the case that it does not see (the form either? This would absurdly follow because just as if it sees one quality, it should see all of them; likewise if it does not see one, it should not see any).

(4) It cannot be the case that you have bare (sensory) cognition only simply with respect to forms (as truly existent whole “things”). Why? Because these (forms) have a far portion, a near portion, and a middle (one, and so are only imputations on their parts).

(5) And when you analyze whether the (constituent) particles (of a form) have parts or not, these indeed become included (in the category of that which has parts and therefore they too lack truly established existence). Because of that, it’s unreasonable for composite (forms made up) by composing (particles lacking true existence) to be established (as truly existent whole objects of bare sensory cognition).

(6) Everything indeed becomes a section (of something greater) and then again (itself) becomes something having sections. Because of that, even spoken syllables are (merely conventions) in this (world and) are not (truly) existent.

(7) If the (truly existent) shape (of a vase) were different from (its truly existent) color, then how could (the visual cognition of the color) cognitively take the shape (as its object)? On the other hand, if they were not different, (but the same on the basis of true existence), then why, with your body (in the dark, does your visual cognition of the shape) not also cognitively take the color (as its object too)?

(8) If a (resultant) form were not imputed to be something visible, (but truly existed as a visible object, inherently different from the elemental particles that were its cause), there wouldn’t appear to be causal (particles) of the form, (because the form would exist independently of and unrelated to them). On the other hand, if it were like that (that the form and its causal particles were truly the same, then) for what reason do the two not become cognitively taken (at once) by the very (same) visual (cognition)?

(9) Earth can be seen as firm and it can also be cognitively taken (as an object of tactile cognition) by the body. Therefore, (if the element of earth had truly established existence), you would need to say that earth could only be (an object of) touch (and not of sight and, moreover, could not be the cause of visible forms).

(10) If it arose (from its causes) as something that was perceptible, there’d be no (need) for a vase (to have) any qualities (such as having an inherent relation with some category, such as the universal “perceptibility,” in order for it to be seen, as you Vaisheshikas would claim. This is because it would already be perceptible). Therefore, if it were the case that it arose (as perceptible only from having such a truly existent relation with the universal) “perceptibility,” (then it itself would be non-perceptible and therefore) could not exist as an existent phenomenon (because it couldn’t be known).

(11) (The cognitive sensors of) the eye (do not truly exist and cognize form, because if they did, such cognition of a form) would arise (from something unrelated to it, and thus it could) likewise (arise from the cognitive sensors of) the ear. But what’s seen by the (cognitive sensors of) the eye is not (cognized) by any other (cognitive sensors. As this is difficult to comprehend), the ripening of karma (is even more difficult and) was therefore said by the Able Sage (Buddha) to be beyond imagination.

(12) Because the conditions are not complete, a (visual) cognition cannot exist before the (act of the eye sensors) looking (at a form). But, however, if (a visual cognition truly existed) after (the act of looking), the cognition would be pointless (because the looking would have already ceased). As for the third (alternative, namely the looking and the cognition occurring simultaneously, if this were so, then) the function (of the looking to cause the cognition) would become pointless.

(13) If those (truly existent) eye (sensors) were to possess the motion (of traveling to their object in order to perceive it, then) that which is distant would be seen after a longer time, (that which is close would be seen sooner, in which case the eye sensors see things differently and therefore cannot be truly existent. But, if the eye sensors did truly exist, then) why are forms that are extremely near and those at a great distance not (equally) clear (since both should be cognized the same)?

(14) If after (noticing) a form, the eye (sensors) travel (out to perceive it), there would be no advantage in its having traveled out, (since they would already have seen it). Or, (if they travel to see an object they haven’t yet seen and are unaware of, then) to say, “(I’m) definitely (going to see this object that I) wish to perceive” would be a lie (because your eye sensors would always travel blind and never could find the desired object).

(15) If the (truly existent) eye (sensors) cognitively took (truly existent) forms without (need to) travel (out to see them, then) they would have to see all such things. Any (eye sensors) that do not (need to travel to see) cannot have (any difference in their perception of objects whether) far (or near) or even (whether) obscured (or not).

(16) If the (truly existent) nature of all functional phenomena first appeared (established) in themselves, for instance, in the cognitive sensors, then) for what reason would the eye (sensors) not take (as its object) the eye (sensors) itself? (This would absurdly follow because, being truly existent as the perceiving agent, there should be nothing excluded from its range of vision, including itself.)

(17) The eye (sensors, being physical matter), cannot have (visual) consciousness (of an object); while (visual) consciousness, in fact, cannot have (the function of) looking (at an object, which is the function of the eye sensors. Therefore,) as (neither) can have a form (as its focal condition), how can a form be seen by (the collection of) these (three conditions – truly existent eye sensors, visual consciousness, and forms)?

(18) (Further,) if (the ear consciousness perceiving a voice) travels (out to hear) the sound (once it’s already been) spoken, then for what (reason) would (that consciousness) not have been the speaker (that uttered the sound, since it was already aware it was spoken)? On the other hand, if it in fact traveled (out to hear) the sound when it had not yet been spoken, for what (reason) would it have arisen as an (ear) consciousness (aimed at) this (sound as its object)?

(19) If, upon meeting (the ear sensors), a sound is cognitively taken, then by what is the first (moment) of the sound cognitively taken (as an object before it meets the ear)? As sound does not come alone (to the ear sensors, but always in particles composed of sub-particles of smell and so forth), how could it be cognitively taken (selectively) by itself? (The ear sensors should also cognize smells.)

(20) So long as a sound is not heard, it cannot be a sound for that interval. If what was indeed not a sound (when it was not heard) were to become a sound in the end (when it was heard), this would be unreasonable, (because then a smell as well, as not a sound, could also become a sound).

(21) Even if the mind devoid of any cognitive sensors were to travel (to objects), how could it function (to cognitively take them, since without eyes and so forth it would be like a blind man)? (Because of faults) like this, why wouldn’t (truly existent) minds and living (selves) be forever without cognition?

(22) The (subsidiary) mental (factor) that cognitively takes (the uncommon characteristic mark of) any object seen already, such as (water even) in a mirage (of water) – that’s called, within the scheme of all phenomena, the aggregate factor of distinguishing.

(23) (Such a) mental (factor), having relied on eye (sensors) and a form, comes to arise (even) while being (part of) an illusion. But if something (such as this factor of distinguishing) existed with (true) existence, it’d be unreasonable (for it) to be called (part of) an illusion.

(24) When there’s nothing on earth that becomes no longer peculiar to learned ones (after they’ve analyzed it with logic), then how can there be anything amazing about something like (valid and certain) apprehension (of a non-truly existent sensory object by a non-truly existent) sensory (cognition)?

(25) A circle of fire from a whirling firebrand, an emanation, a dream, an illusion, a moon in the water, a haze, an echo within (a cave or ravine), a mirage, and a cloud are (thus all examples) similar to what (conventionally) exists.

Fourteen: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting Grasping at Extremes

(1) Any functional phenomenon (having true existence) could not have come about from having relied on something else. (Furthermore, upon ultimate analysis,) its (independently existing) nature should be established (by itself alone). But nothing at all exists like that.

(2) (If you) say (in terms of truly established existence), “A vase is a form in general,” they cannot be one; (otherwise, wherever there was a form, it would have to be a vase). Also they cannot exist in different (categories of things, with) a vase possessing a form (like a man possessing a cow; otherwise, a vase by itself would have to exist independently of being a form). Also a vase cannot exist (as the reliant basis of being) a form and a form cannot exist (as the reliant basis of being) a vase, (since they cannot exist in separate independent categories of things).

(3) (You Vaisheshikas) see the two (namely the universal “existence” and the particular substance “vase”) as being in dissimilar (truly existent categories) by definition. But then, if a vase were (truly) different from the phenomenon (“existence”), it would not be (reasonable for it itself to exist). Likewise, for what reason would the phenomenon (of “being existent”) not become (truly) different (and separate) from the vase, (thus also rendering a vase nonexistent)?

(4) (Moreover, you also say that substances and qualities, such as number, amount, and size, also exist in different truly existent categories and, although substances can exist on their own for a while to act as a basis for being qualified by a quality, yet qualities themselves can never exist on their own without qualifying a substance. But,) if you do not accept that (the amount) “one” can (come to qualify) a vase, then neither can a vase come to be (qualified by the amount) “one” as a quality. (This is because you do not allow for the existence of the amount “one” before it comes to qualify the vase. And if you say that the vase comes to possess the amount “one” as a quality, yet the quality “one” cannot come to possess the vase as what it qualifies, then since possession must be made between equals, namely between what can come to possess and what can come to be possessed, and) this possession is not between equals, then for this reason also, a vase cannot come to be (qualified by the amount) “one.”

(5) When the form (of a substance, as a quality of that substance, amounts to) just as much (in extent) as the substance (itself), then (in the same way as the substance itself can possess the quality of being large), why can’t the form (as another quality of the substance also possess the quality of) being large? If you opponents cannot (justify your thesis that qualities cannot act as the basis of other qualities on any grounds) other than (scriptural authority), your tradition could be said (to be logically deficient).

(6) Even if (you admit the refutation of truly existent) defining characteristics (or qualities), but (assert the true existence of) examples of what are characterized (by them, this too is unreasonable). Their (true) existence cannot be established in any way. In this (way), there is no phenomenon that (truly) exists separately from (any qualities), such as number and so forth.

(7) A vase cannot be (truly existent) as one (with its eight types of constituent sub-particles as you Sautrantikas assert. This is) because, being not separate (in nature from its eight types of sub-particles, which each have their own individual) defining characteristics, (it too, as a single unit, would have to exist as eight truly existent things). But, as each (of the eight sub-particles alone) is not the vase, it is not reasonable for (the vase to exist) in a multiple manner (as something truly existing separately from the eight).

(8) There can be no such thing as the simultaneous joining of (the four elemental sub-particles – earth, water, fire, and wind – which) possess (the ability to have) contact, and (the four subsidiary sub-particles – form, smell, taste, and touch – which) do not possess (the ability to have) contact, (in order to form a single vase, for how would they all meet)? Because of that, it is unreasonable in all respects for the joining of (the eight sub-particles of) form and so on (to establish an object that is a collection truly existing as a single unit).

(9) Form (for instance) is (just one of) the subsidiary (sub-particles) of a vase. Therefore, individually each (of the four subsidiary sub-particles) cannot be the vase. Because of this, (a vase) having these subsidiary (sub-particles) cannot have true existence (as a collection relying on them). And for that (same reason), the subsidiary (sub-particles) as well cannot have true existence, (since they too rely on directional parts).

(10) (Further,) as all forms are not dissimilar in their defining characteristics as form in general, then if one (form) were to (truly) exist as a vase, for what reason would all others not (also exist as a vase)?

(11) Suppose you assert that form is (truly) different from taste and so on (since each type of subsidiary sub-particle is cognitively taken by different senses) and yet a (form) is (truly) not different from a vase. Well, how could any vase that itself could not exist without including these (subsidiary sub-particles of taste and so on, which you say are different from form), not (likewise) be different from a form?

(12) A vase does not have (truly existent) causes and it itself does not become (a truly existent) result. Because of that, there is no vase that can (truly) exist as different from (its constituent causes) such as form and so on.

(13) As a vase becomes established from (its own) causes and (these) causes become established from other (causes, therefore) anything not established from its own (self-nature) can accordingly produce other things (as its result).

(14) Even if (the subsidiary sub-particles of form, smell, and so forth) were to gather together and meet (each other to constitute a whole), it is unreasonable for form to become a smell, (which it would need to become if they formed a truly existent, homogeneous whole). Therefore, like a vase, it is illogical for (any) collections (to exist) as (truly existent) single units.

(15) Just as there can be no vase that can exist without depending on (its constituent subsidiary sub-particles) such as form and so on, likewise there can be no (subsidiary sub-particles of) form as well, without depending on (the elemental sub-particles of) earth, wind, and so forth (upon which they are imputed).

(16) (Furthermore, fuel, which is in the nature of the three elements earth, water, and wind) can become hot in the nature of fire, but without (fuel, which can become) hot, how can (fire) burn? Therefore, there can be no such thing as what is called (truly existent) fuel (existing independently of the element fire and in the nature of the three other elements). Also there can be no (truly) existent fire without this (fuel).

(17) Even if (you say that fuel becomes) hot when (its own nature as earth, water, and wind is) overpowered (by the nature of fire), for what reason would (the fuel) not become fire (at that instance, because it was hot and burning? If you insist that hot burning fuel does not become of the nature of fire,) well then it is improper to say there is the existence of fire (in relation to) a different functional phenomenon that is not hot.

(18) If a sub-particle (of fire) has no fuel, then there would be an (independently existing) fire without fuel, (which amounts to asserting a fire that is causeless. Fearing this consequence,) if you say that even this (sub-particle of fire) has fuel, then it does not exist as a sub-particle with a nature of being a (truly existent, self-contained) unit.

(19) Any functional phenomenon, when fully examined, (is found) not to exist as a (truly existent unit or) oneness (since it is made of parts). And by this (same reason whereby) things do not (truly) exist as singular units, they do not (truly) exist as multiples either (since “many” is made up of several units, which themselves do not truly exist).

(20) (Now consider the position) in (non-Buddhist systems) which (accept sub-particles of earth and so on, but claim that) they are not functional phenomena (but static substances). If you (were also to) assert (that such sub-particles) are truly existent as (solitary units), well then whatever (reason you use to show that) everything truly exists in a triple (way, namely as substances, singular units, and truly existents, also proves that) they do not truly exist as solitary units.

(21) For (refuting the various philosophical) positions of (asserting) existence, nonexistence, both existence and nonexistence and neither existence nor nonexistence, the learned should always apply (such lines of reasoning as analyzing whether things are truly existently) one and so on.

(22) (There are many misconceptions that people can hold. For instance,) just as by regarding a continuity in a faulty manner, you can come to (the misconception) that (functional phenomena) exist as static; likewise, by regarding a collection in a faulty manner, you can come to (the misconception) that functional phenomena truly exist.

(23) But, whatever (conventionally) exists as having arisen by depending (on causes and so forth) cannot come to be (found as having true) independent (existence). As all these (things) are not independent, therefore there is no such thing as a (truly existent) “soul,” (either of a person or of any phenomenon).

(24) (Consider the assertion of) functional phenomena as (having true existence on their own) without (or independent of) the result (they will produce and which) do not exist (in the sense of) always being gathered (dependently) on their result. Any such (truly existent independent phenomenon) being gathered for the sake of (producing) a result cannot be included in (the sight of the total absorption of) an arya, (since aryas are focused on the non-true existence of dependent arising).

(25) (In short,) the seed of compulsive samsaric existence is the consciousness (that grasps at true existence), while objects (such as forms and so on) are the objects it utilizes. But seeing that these objects have no (truly existent) “soul” causes the seed of compulsive existence to come to an end.

Fifteen: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting Collected Phenomena as Ultimately (Truly Arising)

(1) If at the last (moment of the cause, the result is truly) nonexistent and then it comes to arise (as truly existent, this is unreasonable, because then even a rabbit’s horn could arise). Therefore, how can something truly nonexistent arise? And if you accept that (the result truly) exists (at the time of the cause) and then comes to arise, (this is also unreasonable, because it would already have arisen and thus have no need to arise again). Therefore, how can something truly existently arise?

(2) With the (generation of the) result, the cause disintegrates. Therefore, it is not that something (truly) nonexistent (at the time of the cause) comes to arise. And because there is no (necessity) for something (already) established (at the time of the cause) to be established (again, something truly) existent does not arise either.

(3) At that time (when the result already truly exists), it cannot have an arising (because it already exists). Moreover, at the other time (when it is truly nonexistent), it cannot have an arising (either, because then anything could arise). If it does not arise at either that time or the other time, when can it come to have an arising?

(4) Just as there is no arising in which something (truly existent produces) the phenomenon of itself (because there is no need), likewise there is no arising in which something (truly existent produces) another phenomenon, (because the two would be truly different and unrelated).

(5) (An arising) at the beginning, (an abiding) in the middle, and (a ceasing) at the end do not exist before something arises. And at (the time of each), the other two do not exist, (but yet they are not truly independent of each other). Just as each comes to begin (and thus there is no abiding or ceasing without an arising, likewise each comes to abide and to cease).

(6) Without other phenomena (as its causes, a result) is not produced as its own phenomenon (from itself, since functional phenomena rely on causes. Moreover, these causal functional phenomena that are other than the result they produce also lack true existence, since they too rely on their causes. Therefore,) because of that, there is no production from either of the two, (truly existent) self or others.

(7) You cannot say that that which is before (the result, namely a truly existing arising), and that which is after (the cause, namely a truly existing result), exist simultaneously (since then the result would already exist at the time of its arising and there would be no need for it to arise). Because of that, a vase and its arising do not occur simultaneously.

(8) As it is the case that (when something) first arises (it is not old) because (it is new), then (if it were truly existent as new), what first arises could not become old. Later, even after it has completely arisen, (it would not be old), and still afterwards what arose (as truly new) could never have become (old).

(9) (Further,) a functional phenomenon of the present is not produced from its own (truly existent time present); it is not produced from a (truly existent time) not yet to come; nor is it (produced) from a (truly existent time) already passed.

(10) Something that has (truly existently) arisen can have no coming and likewise no going to a ceasing. As this is the case, for what reason is (conventional) existence not like an illusion?

(11) As a (truly existent) arising, abiding, and ceasing cannot occur simultaneously and cannot occur in stages, when can they come to occur?

(12) (If) arising and so on (had true existence), they would all have to occur each of them over again, (as they each would already be existing before they had actually occurred). Because of that, a ceasing would become like an arising (when it actually came to occur), and an abiding would appear like a ceasing (before it actually began to occur).

(13) If you said that the (three) modes (of arising, abiding, and ceasing) and the basis of the modes (for example the functional phenomenon of a vase, were truly existent and) different (from each other), then the basis of the modes would be anything but nonstatic, (since being truly separate from an arising and so forth, it would have to be static). Or else, (if they were truly existently one with each other), there should not exist any clear (distinction) in the (truly) existent natures of all four (and that would destroy the relationship of a mode and the basis of a mode).

(14) A (truly existent) functional phenomenon cannot arise from a (truly existent) functional phenomenon (because it would already exist). Moreover, (such) a functional phenomenon cannot arise from a (truly existent) nonfunctional phenomenon (because like a burnt seed it would lack the power to produce a result). A nonfunctional phenomenon cannot arise from a nonfunctional phenomenon (because like a rabbit’s horn, such cannot arise from anything).

(15) A (truly existent) functional phenomenon cannot become a functional phenomenon (that arises, because it will already have arisen) and a (truly existent) nonfunctional phenomenon cannot become a functional phenomenon (that arises, otherwise the son of a barren woman could be born). A nonfunctional phenomenon cannot become a nonfunctional phenomenon (that has ceased, otherwise the son of a barren woman could die) and a functional phenomenon cannot become a nonfunctional phenomenon (that has ceased, because the two truly existent categories must be mutually exclusive).

(16) While (something) is arising, because it is half (already) arisen (and half not yet arisen) the process of arising cannot be a (truly existent) arising (apart from these portions). Or else there would be the absurd conclusion that all (three times, namely the portion of not yet having arisen, the portion of arising now and the portion of already having arisen) would be the (truly existently) arising.

(17) (In terms of true existence, if) what is in the process of arising were the thing itself it was going to be, it would make it not what is in the process of arising (because being in the process of arising would imply that the thing itself had not yet been established). Even if what is in the process of arising were not the thing itself it was going to be, it would still make it not be what is in the process of arising (because it would then be truly different from and thus totally unrelated to what it would be and would not be arising as anything).

(18) Any (tradition that asserts that) the two (namely the time not yet come and the time already passed) cannot exist without something in between, (must also assert that) the process of arising lacks true existence. Why, because it too would have something in between (its first and last portions, and so on with infinite regress).

(19) (Suppose you say that) because the process of arising is (the time when the cause) has ceased and what is to have arisen (namely the result) is about to arise, therefore the process of arising is seen in the nature of being something (truly) existent that is in fact different (from a portion of being halfway already arisen and one of being halfway not yet arisen).

(20) (Well, if as you claim, the process of arising had true existence separately from and before what is to have arisen, then) when what is to have arisen (truly exists), at such a time there cannot exist the process of its arising (because the arising will have already ceased. Thus, you cannot establish that what has arisen was produced from this process of arising that you inferred to truly exist separately and before it. The two would be unrelated. And if you grant this, but say that on the basis of true existence what is to have arisen is in the process of arising, well then) when what is to have arisen is in the process of arising, at such a time what reason is there for it to have to be made to arise (again – it would already have arisen, being truly existent)?

(21) (Suppose you claim that) the process of arising is merely when what has not yet arisen (is progressing toward the state when it) will be proclaimed as what has arisen. (Well then,) because (this assertion made in terms of true existence amounts to) there being no difference (between what has not yet arisen and what has already arisen), why at the time when (there is something functioning as) a vase could it not be (also) conceived of as not (a vase or something functional, because likewise there should be no difference between a vase that has arisen and the nonfunctional state when it has not yet arisen)?

(22) (Suppose you retort that there is a difference between the process of arising and when something has not yet arisen, namely the former is connected with the action of arising while the latter is not necessarily so connected. Well then,) when something is in the process of arising, it is in fact not yet complete (and thus has a portion of being not yet arisen. Therefore, by being connected with the action of arising,) what has not yet arisen would pass beyond (the category of being something not yet come, for it would be presently occurring). And if that were indeed so, then by the very fact that the process of arising is beyond the limits of when something has already arisen (and thus has a portion of being not yet arisen), then because of that, what has not yet arisen would be arising.

(23) (And suppose you further assert that) the process of arising, even before it has occurred, can be proclaimed to be (truly) existent (as a functional phenomenon), because later (it will come to be connected with the action of arising. Well then,) by that, (you would) in fact (be forced to conclude that only) what has not yet arisen arises (and that is unreasonable on the basis of true existence. After all,) what has not yet arisen is said to have not occurred (and therefore has not acquired the status of being the functional phenomenon of itself. Thus, it could not enter into the action of arising and) could not arise.

(24) To say that (when the action of arising is) completed, (a functional phenomenon) exists and to say that (when the action of arising) has not been done, (a functional phenomenon) does not yet exist (is irrelevant). When there is no such thing as a (truly existent) process of arising, what can be said about one?

(25) (In short), when there can exist no result without a cause that can be understood, then a (truly existing result) entering into (a process of arising) and a (truly existing cause) reversing (and ceasing) are illogical.

Sixteen: Indicating the Meditations for How to Cause Teachers and Disciples to Gain Certainty (about Voidness)

(1) All these chapters have been to refute individually any reasons (that may be given why), although (everything is) void (of true existence, others grasp at them) to be as if not devoid.

(2) When you (object) that it is improper to say that the author, subject matter, and likewise (the words of these chapters) are void (because they exist; well then, since) whatever arises from depending on (something else) is (void of true existence, therefore) these three as well are not (truly) existent.

(3) If, by the faults (of everything being) void, it were to be established that (things) are not void, then by (these very same) faults (that would arise from everything) not being void, (namely that nothing could exist or function,) why wouldn’t voidness be established?

(4) To counter another’s position and establish your own position, (you need to rely on reasoning). If one faction (merely) took pleasure in criticizing (the other), why wouldn’t they (be happy) to establish (their own position based merely on opinion, but not on logic)?

(5) If a position becomes not (reasonable if), upon thorough analysis, (what it asserts is found) not to be (a validly knowable phenomenon), then all three (assertions of things being truly existently) one (or many or beyond speech) and so on become untenable positions.

(6) (If you say that) anything seen by bare (sensory) cognition, (such as) a vase, has (true existence, well) this (tradition that asserts the voidness of true existence) does not have (as part of its tenets such faulty) lines of reasoning coming from other (Mahayana Buddhist) traditions, (although) in other respects we have (assertions in common, such as the bodhichitta aim).

(7) As what is not voidness, (namely a basis of voidness), does not have (true existence), from what could its voidness arise (as being truly existent)? As one of them does not have (true existence, namely the basis of voidness, such as a vase), how could its opponent (namely its lack of true existence) come to arise (as truly existent)?

(8) If (the position of voidness) were a truly existent position, then what is not that position (namely true existence) would (also) become truly existent as a position. (But since voidness is not truly existent,) what is not the position (of voidness) is not truly existent (either. As truly existent phenomena do not exist at all,) what could come to constitute the counter-set (of things that are not void of true existence, which would be necessary for establishing as a truly existent set everything that is void)?

(9) If functional phenomena (in general) lack true existence, how could (a specific one, such as) the heat of a fire, become (truly existent)? A hot fire, as well, has no true existence as was (established by) previous countering (arguments).

(10) If it can be countered that by seeing functional phenomena (you can validly know that) functional phenomena lack true existence, then which of the four positions (asserting phenomena to be truly existently one, many, existent, or nonexistent) could be seen as having abandoned (all) faults, (because truly existent phenomena would have to exist in one or another of those ways)?

(11) (If) particles (existed as) truly existent functional phenomena, (they should be the object of valid cognition). But as they are not (the object) of any (valid cognition), how could they be (truly existent)? As the Buddhas (testified that everything) is indeed non-truly existent, for that very reason you should adhere (to asserting non-true existence).

(12) If the absence of the dual (division of some things being truly existent and some being void applies) to everything, what else is there that can be a truly existent functional phenomenon? If you dispute these lines of reasoning (already proven), what can (your views, which are) different (from that of voidness,) do (for you? They cannot bring you liberation.)

(13) As there are no (truly existent) phenomena among all phenomena, it is unreasonable to divide (phenomena into truly existent and non-truly existent ones. The voidness) that is seen of all things cannot become a division (opposed to true existence, because everything is void).

(14) If (we Prasangikas) were known as unanswerable to other positions because (we asserted the total) nonexistence (of everything), then why is it that your own position can be countered by the logic (of voidness) and not be established (by reason)?

(15) Even if you say (it is well known) in the world that lines of reasoning to undermine (voidness) are easy to find, why is it that you are unable to state (any) faults in our position of what is other (than true existence, namely voidness, which can withstand the test of logic)?

(16) If by merely (your words) that (everything has) true existence, (everything) were to exist as truly existent phenomena, then why wouldn’t (everything) become non-truly existent merely by (our words) that (they are) non-truly existent?

(17) And (if things) do not become (totally) nonexistent because of their being labeled with the names “existing” and “obtaining,” they do not (on the other hand) become (truly) existent because of their being given the name “(truly) existent,” (for this latter is a case of applying a misnomer).

(18) Suppose (you say that everything) in the world has true existence since everything can be spoken of (in words) by the world, (despite these words not having the same truly existent nature as their objects. Well then,) how could any functional phenomenon that had ultimate existence become (an object of speech) of the world, (because words and referents truly existently different by nature could not be related)?

(19) Suppose (you claimed that) all functional phenomena would become totally nonexistent because of their lack of (true) existence. (Well then,) if that were so, then all those (who hold the Prasangika) position (would be asserting that what previously had been truly existent had become totally) nonexistent phenomena. (But this) is unreasonable (since, throughout beginningless time, everything has been non-truly existent).

(20) Because phenomena lack true existence, the non-phenomenon (of their voidness) cannot come to have true existence. As phenomena have never had true existence, from what (basis) could the non-phenomenon (of the absence or voidness of their true existence) be established?

(21) Suppose (you said that) because voidness comes (to be established) from (truly existent) lines of reasoning, (voidness) cannot be void (of true existence. Well then,) if the asserted (thesis) and the line of reasoning were (truly existently) different, (they would be unrelated, and the former could not be proven by the latter). And if they were not (different, but truly existently one), then it would not be a (proper) line of reasoning, (since being identical with the thesis, the line of reasoning could not prove the thesis, as is the case in a tautology).

(22) And suppose (you said that) because there are truly existent examples (to prove) voidness, therefore (voidness) cannot be void of true existence. (Well then,) can you say that (from the example) “just like a crow” (you can substantiate that) the “self” is likewise black? (A truly existent example and thesis would be likewise irrelevant to each other.)

(23) If functional phenomena existed with truly established existence, what benefit would there be from seeing voidness, (because it would be incorrect)? But since you are bound (with suffering in samsaric existence from) seeing with misconceptions (everything as being truly existent), therefore (an implied object of this grasping for true existence) is to be refuted here.

(24) (Further), to say (like you Chittamatrins) that the one (namely consciousness) has true existence, while the (other) one (namely external objects) does not exist (at all) is not so in terms of the facts of reality, (since both lack true existence). Moreover, it is not so on the worldly level either, (since both are conventionally existent). Therefore, you cannot say that this (namely consciousness, ultimately) has true existence and this (namely external objects, conventionally) has no existence (at all).

(25) (In short,) any position that (asserts either) true existence, total nonexistence, both true existence and nonexistence, (or neither) does not exist (as a valid one with the support of logic). Even after a very long time, (proponents of) such (positions) will never have the ability to expound an answer (that could refute voidness, because voidness is irrefutable).


This concludes Four Hundred Verse Treatise on the Actions of a Bodhisattva’s Yoga, composed by the Learned Master Aryadeva, who was miraculously born from a lotus in Sri Lanka. Having crossed the ocean of his own and others’ tenets and divided the correct from the incorrect view, he completely clarified the Middle Path (view) of Madhyamaka and became the spiritual son of the Highly Realized Arya Nagarjuna.

This was translated, (from Sanskrit into Tibetan), and edited and finalized in the Precious Hidden Pleasure Garden in the center of the city of Pemey (dPe-med) in Kashmir by the Indian Master Sushmajnana and the Tibetan translator Patsab Lotsawa Nyima-drag (Pa-tshab Lo-tsa-ba Nyi-ma grags).




--------------------------------------
Technorati: Buddhism Buddha Buddhist Dharma Compassion Wisdom Religion Meditation Zen Philosophy Spirituality Aryadeva Peace Insight

Read more!

Four Hundred Verse Treatise Chapters on the Actions of a Bodhisattva's Yoga (Chapters 9 - 12)

(Byang-chub sems-dpa'i rnal-'byor spyod-pa bzhi-brgya-pa'i bstan-bcos kyi tshig-le'ur byas-pa, Skt. Bodhisattva-yogacarya-catu:shataka-shastra-karika)

by Aryadeva

translated by Alexander Berzin, 1978
according to the commentary of Gyeltsabjey
(rGyal-tshab rJe Dar-ma rin-chen)

Chapters 1 - 4
Chapters 5 - 8
Chapters 9 - 12
Chapters 13 - 16

* Chapter Nine: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting Static Functional Phenomena
* Chapter Ten: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting a (Static, Impossible) “ Self” or “Soul”
* Chapter Eleven: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting (Truly Existent) Time
* Chapter Twelve: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting (Attraction to Distorted) Views

Nine: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting Static Functional Phenomena

[Starting with this chapter, verses are written as paragraphs rather than divided into lines.]

(1) All (functional phenomena) arise as a fact of being the result (of a collection of causes and circumstances). Therefore, there’s no such thing as a static (functional phenomenon that is causeless and truly existent). Except for the Thusly Gone Able Sage (Buddhas), there isn’t anyone (who can simultaneously cognize, nonconceptually,) just how functional phenomena (are both nonstatic and devoid of true existence).

(2) Whatever (functional phenomena there are) do not exist just at any place or at any time without relying (on causes and circumstances). Therefore, there is no such thing whatsoever as a (functional phenomenon that is) static, anytime, anywhere.

(3) There is no such thing as a functional phenomenon without a cause, and no such thing as something static having a cause. Therefore, concerning (a static functional phenomenon) established from no cause, it is said that such indeed cannot be established (as an object of valid cognition even) by the Omniscient One.

(4) (Suppose you Vaisheshikas say the criterion for knowing something to be) nonstatic is from seeing that it has been produced, while if (you can) not (see it) has been produced, (that makes it) static. (Well then,) from seeing that it has been produced, (you merely know something to be) existent. (Therefore, not seeing an atman or “soul” as having been produced) makes (such a so-called) static object nonexistent.

(5) Space and so forth are understood to be static (and substantially existent, because they perform the function of serving as objects of the cognition of them, only) by ordinary folk (such as you Vaibhashikas, who do not correctly understand Buddha’s texts). The wise do not see such things as objects (of valid cognition), even on a worldly (conventional level).

(6) Directional (space), such as (that of the eastern) direction, does not abide everywhere. Because of that, it’s extremely clear that directional (space) indeed has directions and other (divisions such as parts. Thus, it cannot be a static functional phenomenon in the way you Vaisheshikas define it as being both all-pervasive and partless).

(7) And any (type of time) that exists, allowing either the occurrence or prevention of a functional phenomenon to be seen (at its proper time) must, (in order to function as a cause), come under the influence of other (factors). Therefore, it itself becomes a result (and thus cannot be static as you Vaidantikas claim).

(8) Any cause that does not have a result cannot exist as a cause. Because of that, you are forced to conclude that every cause must itself be a result, (for its ability to produce its result is itself the result of other conditions).

(9) If a cause transforms, it becomes the cause of something else. Whatever has transformation cannot be called static.

(10) (Further,) a functional phenomenon that has something static (such as time) as its cause should arise (at its proper time even) from (other supporting conditions) not coming about. Thus, it becomes something arising independently, in which case such (a functional phenomenon) would become the opposite of (something that relies on) causes.

(11) (After all), how can a functional phenomenon that arises from something static be nonstatic? A cause and effect that have dissimilar characteristics can never be seen.

(12) (Consider the ultimately smallest particles, which you Vaisheshikas say are static and partless. How can they form an object?) Any (such particles) that had certain sides, (which when they met) were the cause (for an object’s forming, and certain sides, which were not the cause), would (therefore) have various (parts). How is it logical for that which has various (parts) to be static (by your definitions)?

(13) (The objects that would be) the result of (the meeting of such static particles, which as) a cause are round, do not have (this same round shape and size). Therefore, it is (also) unreasonable for (such) particles to join with their entire natures (merging on all sides all at once to form an object).

(14) (Suppose you said that they do not actually merge on all sides, since) you do not accept that the place occupied by one particle can also be (occupied) by another. Well then, because of that, (you are forced to say that in order to build up a gross, visible object, they must meet with at least some sides not joining, since) it cannot be accepted that (each of) the causal (particles) and the resultant (objects they form) are both equal in size. (But, then, if some sides join and some do not, these particles cannot be partless).

(15) Any (ultimately smallest particle) that has an eastern side also has an eastern part. (Therefore) any particles that have directional sides cannot be asserted as particles that are the ultimately smallest (partless) particles.

(16) Any (ultimately smallest particle) that, (when moving), has both (a space) before it that it takes and one behind it that it gives up cannot be (partless, since it has a front and a back). Or (else you would have to say that such particles) cannot be something that moves (to form an object).

(17) And any (ultimately smallest particle) that has no first (part in front), that has no middle, and any that has no end (in the rear) cannot be (situated) before (any mind). As this is so, by what kind (of valid yogic cognition) could it be seen?

(18) (With the production) of its result, a cause disintegrates. Therefore, (particles as) a cause must be nonstatic and impermanent. Otherwise, whatever had (static eternal particles) as its cause would have its cause and effect existing (simultaneously).

(19) A functional phenomenon that can (have its motion) obstructed (which implies a change of state) and yet is static cannot be seen anywhere. Therefore, the Buddhas never said that particles are static and permanent.

(20) (Now) liberation (as the noble truth of true stoppings, in being static and permanent,) is different from the binding (truth of true origins of suffering), the bound (truth of true sufferings) and the method (truth of true pathway minds). If, (however,) it had (substantial) existence (because of performing the function of serving as a cause for the cognition of it, as you Vaibhashikas claim, it should produce an effect). But nothing at all arises from it. Therefore, such (a substantially existent stopping) cannot be said to be liberation.

(21) (You also incorrectly think that) in the nirvana state beyond sorrow (without any residue), aggregates do not exist at all and a person (or conventional “me” relying on them) does not exist either. But, as (only a truly existent “person”) who has passed beyond sorrow cannot be seen anywhere, how can nirvana (itself be substantially existent)?

(22) At the time of liberation, when there is parting from craving, if (the atman or “self”) had (a nature of) consciousness (as you Samkhyas assert), what point would there be (to this, since according to you there would be no objects for it to perceive). And if it were to exist then and not be conscious, this amounts to what is clearly not so (according to your system, since you assert that the “self” with the nature of consciousness is static and permanent).

(23) If a “self” that was liberated had (true) existence, then (even if) it existed (in this condition) as having (only) the potential for consciousness, (this would still be unreasonable, since by not actually being conscious, it contradicts your definitions). And if (a truly existent “self”) did not exist (with consciousness when liberated), it wouldn’t be (reasonable) for it ever to have thought about (becoming released from) recurring samsaric existence, (since being truly existent and static, it could never have been conscious at all).

(24) (Thus,) it is definite that people who are liberated from suffering do not have (an independently existing “self”) different from (that which can merely be labeled on the basis of their aggregate factors of experience). Because of that, it is said that it is best to eliminate (grasping at a truly existent) “self” in all respects.

(25) (But you may object that) worldly ones easily (accept the conventional existence) of these (ordinary things), while not (doctrinally asserting) at all their ultimate (true existence; so why bother trying to refute true existence. After all,) for worldly ones, the slightest (things) have existence, but do not have ultimate (true) existence. (Well then, just because they do not have doctrinally based grasping at things to have true existence, this does not negate or eliminate their having automatically arising grasping).

Ten: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting a (Static, Impossible) “ Self” or “Soul”

(1) A (static, truly existent) internal “self” (or atman as asserted by you Vaisheshikas) can be neither female, nor male, nor hermaphroditic, (otherwise you would always have to be reborn as the same gender). When this is so, then it is only out of unknowing (naivety) that you can think in terms of being a (truly existent) male “self” (and so on).

(2) And when it is so that none of the elements (constituting the body) exist as male, female, or hermaphroditic, then how can (an external “self”) that relies on these be (truly existently) male or female or hermaphroditic?

(3) That which is your “self” is not my “self.” Therefore, this (object of your self-preoccupation) cannot be a (truly existent) “self,” because (if it were, it would also have to be the object of my self-preoccupation and this) cannot be ascertained (to be so). Doesn’t the thought (of a “self”) arise (merely as an imputation) on the nonstatic functional phenomena (of one’s own aggregate factors of experience)?

(4) A “person” (or “self”) would have to change aspects from rebirth to rebirth in accordance with (the change in) body (and life form). Therefore, it is unreasonable for you (to maintain) that (the “self”) is a different (substantial) entity from the body and static.

(5) It can never happen that something that cannot have contact (with anything) can be said to incite a functional phenomenon (into action). Because of that, the “living one” (or “self”) cannot become the agent for (causing) the body’s motion.

(6) (If) it cannot be harmed, how can you think there is any use in causal (actions to prevent suffering) for a static “self”? In no respect, would you ever need to protect a diamond-hard scepter from wood-worms!

(7) If your “self” is static and permanent because it has memories of (past) lives (in which it also considered itself “me,” well then) from seeing a mole (on your body similar to one you) had in a previous (life), why would your body itself not be static and permanent?

(8) And if (you say it is) a “self” that possesses (the quality of) having consciousness that indeed is the knower (of previous lives and so on), well then such a “ person” (or “self”) that is not conscious (on its own, but then comes to) have consciousness (as its quality) could not be static.

(9) You can see that the “living one” (or “self”) when it possesses (qualities) such as happiness and so on (takes on) varied (aspects) in accordance with whether (it is experiencing) happiness and so on. Because of that, it is improper for (the “self”) to be static indeed while (it can experience being) happy and so on.

(10) But if, (according to you Samkhyas, the “self” or “person,” which) has (a nature) of consciousness, is static and permanent, then (its needing to rely on cognitive sensors for) the action (of cognizing objects) becomes contrary (to this). If fire were static and permanent, (its reliance on) fuel (in order to burn) would not be meaningful.

(11) As long as there is a substantially existent (potential for awareness, which is not different from the static “person” or “self” and which has) the function (of causing the “person” to have cognitions), it will never fluctuate (from doing this) until (the “ person”) disintegrates. But, as (you assert that) the “person” exists (staticly, forever), it is unreasonable to say its cognitions ever cease to exist.

(12) You see (the “person” or “self”) as sometimes in the sphere (of having the potential) for having cognitions and at others (actually) having cognitions. Because this is like iron (sometimes being) in a molten state (and at other times not), the “person” becomes something that changes in aspect.

(13) (Now Suppose as you Nyaiyikas say, that the “person” or “self”’s) having consciousness (is due to its relying) on merely (one of its atoms being conjoined with) mind and (also that) the “person” is vast (and as all-pervasive) as space. Well then, because (the vast majority of the infinite “self” is not conjoined with mind), it would appear as though its nature could not be one (that would allow for) having consciousness.

(14) If the “self” existed (as static, partless, and pervasive) to everyone, why shouldn’t you, through (the “self” in) someone else, conceive of him as “me”? It is unreasonable to say (it is because your) very (“self,” although present in someone else,) is obscured by (his) very (“self,” since then the “self” would have parts and not be single).

(15) Any (views, such as those of the Samkhyas, that assert primal matter with an equal proportion of the three constituent) qualities (namely the principles of happiness, suffering, and indifference) as being the creator (of all manifestations of these) and yet not having consciousness of any of these aspects, have no difference whatsoever from those of madmen.

(16) What could be more unreasonable than for (primal matter, as a balance of these three constituent) qualities, to create all aspects, such as houses and so on, and yet not be conscious (of them) as the conscious experiencer (of the fruits of its actions)?

(17) (A “self,” as asserted by you Vaisheshikas, that) has actions cannot (also) be static. And (also), one that extends to all (times and places) cannot have actions (such as coming and going. Thus, your assertions about it are self-contradictory). Further, (a “self”) that did not have actions would be tantamount to its being nonexistent. (Therefore,) why not rejoice in (the fact that there is) no (truly existent) “self”?

(18) Some (such as you Vaisheshikas and Samkhyas) see (the “self”) as extending in everyone. Some, (such as you Jains, observe) the “person” to be merely (the same size as each individual’s) body. While some, (such as you Nyaiyikas, perceive) the “person” to be merely an atom. But those with discriminating awareness see it as non(-truly) existent, (since if it truly existed, everyone should validly see it the same).

(19) Where can there be harm for (a “self” that is) static and permanent, and where can there be liberation for what cannot be harmed? Therefore, liberation is unreasonable for anyone whose “self” is static and permanent.

(20) If there (actually) existed what is known as a (truly existent) “ self,” it would be unreasonable to think there was no (such) “self,” and it would indeed be a lie to say that you could pass beyond sorrow (into nirvana) from a definite understanding of the facts of reality (namely, the voidness of the “self”).

(21) But suppose (you say that although there is no truly existent “self” in recurring samsaric existence, yet the liberated “self” has truly established existence. Well then,) the liberated (“self”) must be non-truly existent, as it previously also was non-truly existent. (This is because) whatever is seen concerning (the voidness of a “self”) that does not possess (any relation with anything else) is explained as being its nature (whether liberated or not).

(22) If nonstaticness (or impermanence meant that things) discontinue completely (after their first moment, then) how could there still be grass and so on? If this (absurd position) were true, there wouldn’t be any naivety occurring in anyone (since, being nonstatic, it too would have disappeared after its first moment).

(23) Even if a (static, truly existent) “self” existed, (it should produce things all by itself. But,) as its bodily form can be seen to arise from (numerous) other (conditions being assembled), can be seen to abide from others (continuing to support it), and can be seen to disintegrate from others (no longer being present, therefore) it can be seen (that such a static and permanent “self” does not exist at all).

(24) Just as a functional sprout arises from a functional seed, likewise all nonstatic (phenomena) are produced from nonstatic (causes, not from a static “self”).

(25) (In short,) because functional phenomena come about ( from them, causes) do not become discontinuous, (as you nihilists would assert). And because functional phenomena become annulled (once they have produced an effect, causes) do not become static and permanent, (as you eternalists would assert).

Eleven: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting (Truly Existent) Time

(1) When the vase has not yet come about, the vase that will be present does not exist, nor does (the vase) that will later have passed away. (Otherwise, if the past, present, and future were static and truly existent as you Vaidantikas claim, then) since both (the vase that will be present and the one that will have passed would already be existing when they had) not yet come about, then (in fact) there would be no (time when they had) not yet come.

(2) (Even) if (only a portion of the vase that) will have disintegrated (existed) in the nature of (the vase that) has not yet come about, it would (in fact) not yet have come about. How can that which (truly) exists in the nature of having not yet come ever become what has already passed away?

(3) If (time) not yet come were a (substantially existent, static) functional phenomenon, (then time) not yet come would have to abide truly existently (and forever). Therefore, because of that, (as such a time would have arisen, but never ceased to be,) it would become the present and would not exist at all as what had not yet come.

(4) (If, as you Vaisheshikas, Vaibhashikas, and so forth claim, time) not yet come were (truly) existent, and (time) already passed were (truly) existent, and (time) presently happening were (truly) existent, when would (any of them ever) not exist? From what (grounds then), would any (debater who asserted the substantial) existence of all (three) times (also be able to assert) nonstaticness (or impermanence)?

(5) If a (truly existent time) already passed were to pass away, then for what reason would it have been a time passed, (if it need pass again)? And if a (truly existent time) already passed were not to pass away, then for what reason would it be a time passed (since it would always be the case)?

(6) (If the three times were substantially existent, nonstatic functional phenomena, as you Vaibhashikas claim, and the past and future of an object were the same as that object itself, then) if the (vase) not yet come has (already) arisen, how could it not become (equivalent to) a present (vase that is here and now, since it has arisen and not yet ceased)? Either that (would be so), or if it has no arising, would the (vase) not yet come become eternal or what? (It would have to be eternal, since what is eternal and static has no arising.)

(7) Suppose (you say that) the (vase) not yet come is nonstatic (and impermanent) due to (the fact that) it disintegrates (when the vase of the present comes about from causes and circumstances), although (it itself) has no arising. Well then, as the (vase) already passed does not have a disintegration, why do you not consider it as static (and eternal, with no arising)?

(8) As for the (vase) already passed away and the (vase) of the present, since these could not become impermanent (if they had substantial existence, because what has truly passed cannot disintegrate and what is truly present cannot be associated with a process of disintegration), then the third (time, namely that not yet come), which in aspect is different from these (two), cannot exist (as both substantially existent and impermanent either, since then it would be independent of the other two times).

(9) If (you accept that) functional phenomena that will arise later exist (substantially) before (they have arisen, well because of that, don’t you fall to the distorted position of those propounders of chance (the Charvakas who assert that everything exists without a cause)?

(10) It is unreasonable to say that whatever is to come about (later already) exists beforehand (as the substantially existent future). If what already existed were to arise (later), it would amount to what has already arisen (needing to) come about again.

(11) If (substantially existent) functional phenomena not yet come about could be seen (by the yogis), then why couldn’t totally nonexistent phenomena (like rabbit’s horns also) be seen? Anyone who accepts time not yet come as (substantially) existent cannot have far-distant (occurrences happen) to him (since these would always remain truly in the future).

(13) If your Dharma (vows of the time not yet come already had substantial) existence without need to have done (any practice to develop an interest in taking them), then definitely to restrain (yourself by taking them) would become pointless. Why make even a little (effort)? A result (of your effort) would be impossible, as (your vows of the time not yet come would already be substantially) existent.

(14) (If disturbing emotions and suffering not yet come did not exist as nonstatic, functional, objective phenomena, but only as static, nonfunctional, metaphysical ones, as you Sautrantikas believe, then) you would already be liberated without need to tighten (your effort to develop true pathway minds that cognize voidness). Like (arhats) who were freed, (disturbing emotions and suffering) not yet come would not exist (objectively at all for you and therefore could never come to affect you). And if that were so, then when desire indeed came about in (your mental continuum, which should have been) without (any future) attachment, (it would come about without cause, as if in the mental continuum of an arhat).

(15) For (you Samkhyas and Vaibhashikas) who assert the true existence of the result (simultaneous with the cause) and (you Sautrantikas) who assert the nonexistence (as functional phenomena) of results (not yet come about), adorning (supports) such as pillars and so forth become pointless in order (to produce) a house (as their result).

(16) Suppose (as you Samkhyas assert) that functional phenomena (of the time present truly exist, since they are) transformations (of truly existent, static primal matter in which they existed unmanifestly during the time when they had not yet come about. But even this is incorrect, since such unmanifest existence of the present) is not cognitively taken (as an object) even by the mind. As this is seen to be so, it is (only) the unlearned who conceive of the time present to be (truly) existent.

(17) As they have no (truly) existent abiding, how can functional phenomena be (the cause for imputing the true existence of time)? As they are nonstatic, how can they have an abiding? If (something) were to abide (as it was) at first, it could never become old in the end.

(18) (Moreover,) just as one (moment of) consciousness cannot be conscious of two (moments of an) object, likewise two (moments of) consciousness cannot be conscious of the same (moment of an) object.

(19) If (on the basis of true existence) time had an abiding (as something currently happening), it would never change (from being) the abiding time. (On the other hand, on the basis of true existence) how could (time) have no abiding, for then there could be no end to its not abiding (and nothing would ever occur)?

(20) If impermanence and functional phenomena were (truly existent and) different, functional phenomena could not become impermanent (and perish). And if (they were truly existent and) the same, how could what was impermanent (and nonstatic) ever abide (for even an instant) as a functional phenomenon?

(21) (Truly existent phenomena) that have less strength impermanence (while they abide) cannot have less strength abiding (later, which they would need in order to perish. For if they were truly existent in their former condition of abiding with weak impermanence), by whom could their later turning away (from the state of abiding) be seen? (Their impermanence would never have enough strength to overcome their abiding.)

(22) But if (on the basis of true existence) they had not less strength impermanence (while they abide – in other words, their impermanence was stronger then than their ability to abide), then all functional phenomena that existed at all (times) would (truly existently) have no abiding (because their abiding would never have enough strength to overcome their impermanence and so they would instantly change). Or, the whole lot (of them) could not (actually) be impermanent, (because none of them would ever abide long enough to perform a function and nonfunctional phenomena are static and permanent).

(23) If (functional phenomena truly existently abided, which means they would be) static (while abiding) and then they came to exist with impermanence (in order for them to perish), then their permanence would have no abiding. Furthermore, what had already become static would later have become nonstatic, (which is self-contradictory).

(24) If (on the other hand) functional phenomena (truly) existed simultaneously as (both) abiding and nonstatic, then either their impermanence would have to reverse (while they were abiding) or their abiding would become false (when they perished).

(25) As it is certain that functional phenomena already seen cannot appear (again) and that a consciousness (with an actual past event as its object) cannot (arise) once more, then what is known as “remembering” (is a deceptive cognition that) arises in but a distorted (manner) toward a distorted object.

Twelve: Indicating the Meditations for Refuting (Attraction to Distorted) Views

(1) A listener who is upright and unbiased, has common sense (discrimination), and takes keen interest is described as being a proper vessel (for these voidness teachings. To the mind of such a suitable disciple,) the good qualities of the propounder (of the teachings) will not change into a different aspect (and appear as faults). Nor will (this change of good qualities into faults) happen with respect to the listener either.

(2) (Buddha) spoke of compulsive samsaric existence (as true suffering) and the method of (entering) compulsive existence (as the true origin of suffering), also the method of pacifying (both as the true pathway mind), and likewise their pacification (as a true stopping). But worldly ones, who (are improper vessels and therefore) cannot comprehend this at all, will attribute (the fault of their inability to understand) as if it were that of the Able Sage (Buddha).

(3) (You Samkhyas and Vaisheshikas) are really amazing – you wish to pass beyond sorrow (to nirvana) by giving up all (and yet you still cling to your belief in truly established existence). What reason is there (for you) not to be happy at these (teachings of voidness, since it’s the understanding of them that) will extricate all (your disturbing emotions and suffering)?

(4) How can those who do not know the methods for giving up (suffering actually) come to give it up? Therefore, it is said that except (through the teachings on voidness given) by the Able Sage (Buddha), there definitely can be no state of peace.

(5) Anyone who comes to develop indecisive wavering about the obscure phenomena spoken of by Buddha (can resolve his doubts by relying on the fact that his) teachings on voidness (are verifiably true. In this way,) he can develop confidence solely in this very (Sage also concerning phenomena extremely obscure).

(6) Any (non-Buddhist teachers asserting a static creator) who have difficulty seeing (correctly the actual facts about the gross) world are (surely) charlatans with respect to other (more subtle matters, such as the nature of reality). Whoever would follow them will be deceived for a very long while.

(7) It is extremely difficult for those who would go themselves to a state beyond sorrow to do that. (Although Buddha taught voidness) for the purpose of leading (others to this state), those unfit (as vessels for it become frightened of voidness and) are unhappy to take it to mind.

(8) Those who do not see (the advantages of meditation on voidness or the disadvantages of not so doing) do not (even) begin to fear (voidness), while those who do see (voidness) will in all ways turn away from (fearing it). Therefore, it is said that fear (of voidness) arises for sure (only) in those who know (only) a little (about it).

(9) What is completely certain about immature ones is that they are habituated to the (very) thing that causes them to enter (recurring samsaric existence, namely grasping for true existence); whereas, because they are not habituated (to voidness), they become frightened at that (very) thing which can turn them away (from samsaric existence).

(10) Anyone, obscured simply by naivety, who would prevent (teachings being given on) voidness will not even go to (a better rebirth of) positive qualities and goodness, so what need to mention liberation?

(11) Although degeneration from ethical discipline is a simple (matter), it’s not at all (the same with degeneration) from the (correct) view (of voidness. This is because) with ethical discipline you can progress (only as far as) to a higher status rebirth, but with a (correct) view, you can achieve the supreme states (of liberation or enlightenment).

(12) (So,) to those who are unfit (vessels for the voidness teachings), it’s best (to teach in accord with their) grasping for impossible “souls” and not to teach (them) the lack of impossible “souls.” For (such a) one, (these teachings would cause him to) go to a worse rebirth state (by his misunderstanding); whereas for those who are out of the ordinary, (they will lead) to a state of peace.

(13) There’s no second gateway to (any state of) peace (other than through the realization of voidness), as it causes all wrong views to fall apart. Thus, what becomes the object of cognition for all Buddhist (aryas) is said to be the lack of an impossible “ soul.”

(14) Those that are unfit (vessels) generate fear even from the name of this teaching, (namely “voidness”). Whereas it can be seen that powerful ones who (understand voidness) do not generate fear at inferior (views).

(15) This teaching (of voidness) was not spoken by the Thusly Gone (Buddhas) for the sake of debate; but be this as it may, it burns off (the wrong views of) the proponents of (all) other (teachings), like fuel by fire.

(16) Anyone who comes to know this teaching (of voidness) will not be happy with other (views claiming truly established existence). Therefore, this teaching seems to me like a threshold at which (all wrong views) fall apart.

(17) In reality, there are no (truly existent) “souls.” So what (arya), abiding in what (Buddha) intended, thinking like that, would become excited about the (conventionally) existent (self)? And what (arya) would become frightened by the (totally) nonexistent (“self”)?

(18) After seeing so many (Tirthika) holders of incorrect salvific views, which will become the seed for their meaningless (suffering in samsaric existence), who wouldn’t develop compassion for (these) beings who wish the teachings (for liberation)?

(19) The ultimate Dharma of the Shakya(muni followers), the naked (Jains), and the Brahmins – these three are upheld (respectively) by the mind, the eyes, and the ears. Because of that, the tradition of the classical texts of the Able Sage (Buddha) is the subtlest.

(20) Just as concerning the Brahmins, most of their Dharma teachings can be said to be external hypocritical (rituals), likewise concerning the naked (Jains), most of their Dharma can be said to be ridiculous.

(21) Just as (some) develop respect for the Brahmins’ (tradition), because (they need only) have taken on (the recitation of) the Vedas: likewise (some) become kindly toward the naked (Jains’ tradition), because (they need only) take on deluded (actions such as exposing themselves to the elements).

(22) Because the suffering (of the Jains’ asceticism) is the ripening of karma, how could it come to be (considered) a Dharma (practice)? It isn’t. And because birth (as a Brahmin) is the ripening of karma, it’s not a Dharma (practice either).

(23) The Thusly Gone (Buddhas) have said that the (practice of) Dharma is, in short, doing no harm (in order to attain a higher status rebirth) and (realizing) voidness, the (natural) state beyond sorrow (in order to attain liberation or enlightenment). In this (Buddha-Dharma), there are only these two.

(24) But for all worldly ones, their own positions become as attractive as their own places of birth. For what (reason) should the causes for reversing this (attachment, namely not harming and realizing voidness), be attractive (to them)?

(25) But those with sense will most graciously accept topics of knowledge (useful for liberation) even from other (traditions). Isn’t the sun universally the same for everyone on this earth (in bringing light) to those who have eyes?




--------------------------------------
Technorati: Buddhism Buddha Buddhist Dharma Compassion Wisdom Religion Meditation Zen Philosophy Spirituality Aryadeva Peace Insight

Read more!

Four Hundred Verse Treatise Chapters on the Actions of a Bodhisattva's Yoga (Chapters 5 - 8)

(Byang-chub sems-dpa'i rnal-'byor spyod-pa bzhi-brgya-pa'i bstan-bcos kyi tshig-le'ur byas-pa, Skt. Bodhisattva-yogacarya-catu:shataka-shastra-karika)

by Aryadeva

translated by Alexander Berzin, 1978 according to the commentary of Gyeltsabjey
(rGyal-tshab rJe Dar-ma rin-chen)









Chapters 1 - 4
Chapters 5 - 8
Chapters 9 - 12
Chapters 13 - 16

* Chapter Five: Indicating the Behavior of Bodhisattvas
* Chapter Six: Indicating Methods for Ridding Yourself of Disturbing Emotions
* Chapter Seven: Indicating Methods for Ridding Yourself of Craving for Pleasurable Objects That People Enjoy
* Chapter Eight: Training Disciples

Five: Indicating the Behavior of Bodhisattvas

(1) There are no actions of the Buddhas
That are not causes (for benefiting others).
Even their breath is issued
Only for the sake of (acting as a) medicine for limited beings.

(2) Just as the word Lord of Death
Produces terror for all the world;
Likewise, this word Omniscient One
Produces terror indeed for the Lord of Death.

(3) The Able Sage (Buddha) possesses (the foresight to know
When) to act and not to act,
What to teach and not to teach.
Therefore, what reason is there to say
that the Omniscient One is not omniscient.

(4) Because you cannot see (any action),
Such as going and so forth, (becoming) positive and so on
Except through the thought (that motivates it),
Therefore the mind is established as crucial for all karma.

(5) For bodhisattvas, then,
Constructive (actions) and even (normally) destructive ones
Become constructive and good through their intentions.
Why? Because these (actions) are controlled
(in accordance) with their minds.

(6) The positive force of a bodhisattva’s
First (generating a deepest bodhichitta) mind
Is more especially distinguished than that which (would be required)
For all the limited beings on the earth to become
universal chakra-emperors.

(7) And (the positive force of) someone who disciplines and causes
(others) to develop bodhichitta
Is said to be chosen as more supreme
Than that from erecting a stupa with the nature of precious gems
And as high as the universe.

(8) A spiritual mentor who wishes to benefit a disciple
Needs to show deference to his (inclinations and needs).
Because he knows not (how) to benefit himself,
(A disciple) is called “one who’s to be taught.”

(9) Just as a doctor doesn’t fight with a (patient)
Seized by demons and rage;
Likewise, a sage sees the disturbing emotions as the enemy,
Not the person who’s possessed with these emotions.

(10) Whatever (teachings) anyone has preference for,
He should be (taught to) act (in accord with) these first.
By no means is (someone a) vessel for (the profound)
sacred teachings
If they would cause him (spiritually) to decline
(if he were taught them prematurely).

(11) Just as a mother would be more especially
concerned and loving
Toward a child afflicted with a sickness;
Likewise, the loving affection of bodhisattvas
For those not nice is especially (great).

(12) Appearing as the disciples of some
And as the spiritual mentors of others,
Those who know skilful means
Use various methods to bring insight
to those not understanding (voidness).

(13) Just as it’s rare for a physician, who has become proficient,
Not to be able to treat some sickness,
Likewise it is exceedingly rare for a bodhisattva,
after he’s gained his powers,
Not to be able to tame someone.

(14) If a bodhisattva were not to encourage some people
To be objects (for his enlightening influence),
He’d be causing them to go to worse rebirth states
And thus would become an object of abuse
For others with intelligence.

(15) And how could any (beginner bodhisattva), who
(because of jealousy)
Did not accept that it’s good to be compassionate and kind
to others oppressed (by disturbing emotions),
Later on, give with generosity and kindness
(Even his body) to these protectorless ones?

(16) In order to benefit (all) wandering beings,
(bodhisattvas) remain for as long as the universe.
If those who would remain apart (from having respect for them)
Bring ruination (upon themselves),
What’ll be for those who hate them from the bottom of their hearts?

(17) Those (bodhisattvas) who have even the five
extrasensory abilities for (helping) all beings
(Will assume even) inferior forms,
Like those of lowly (animals, in order to help others.
Such are) their extremely difficult actions (to benefit others).

(18) The Thusly Gone (Buddhas) have said
That the (amount of) positive force built up (by these bodhisattvas)
Over extremely long periods of time through (such) methods
(to benefit others) at all times
Is not even an object an omniscient mind knows.

(19) (Freedom from) death, the Dharma teachings
and (opportunities for) other lives –
(All these) are indicated by the (single) word giving.
Therefore, every time bodhisattvas hear the word giving
(It gives them great joy).

(20) To give in order to receive (something back, however),
Thinking great (enjoyment) will come about in this (lifetime)
as the result from generous giving,
Is just like selling and so forth,
And is despised (by the hallowed ones).

(21) (How can you say that those bodhisattvas) who have previously
built up negative karmic force
Cannot (eliminate) its possession (through their positive deeds)?
There’s no such thing as these (bodhisattvas) having constructive karma
And yet not being able to fulfill (the purposes of others).

(22) Those (arya bodhisattvas) whose minds have great waves
(of exceptional resolve),
Even (while remaining) in this (samsaric existence)
are not harmed (by it).
Therefore, for them, there’s no difference
(Whether they’re) in (compulsive samsaric) existence
or in a nirvana state of release.
(They’re unaffected by the disadvantages of either).

(23) (Arya bodhisattvas) are able to take birth (as they wish)
From having control over their minds at all times.
For what reason, then, should they not become
The lords of all the world, (able to help everyone)?

(24) Great outstanding (results come) from outstanding (causes).
Certain (examples of this) can be seen even in this world.
Therefore, understand that from the force
of an inconceivable (buildup of positive force),
There certainly will be (the omniscience of Buddhahood).

(25) Just as the stupid generate fear
For the extremely profound teachings (of voidness),
The cowardly generate fear
For the extremely amazing teachings
(concerning bodhisattva behavior).

Six: Indicating Methods for Ridding Yourself of Disturbing Emotions

(1) Since pleasable things cause desire to increase
And painful things cause anger to expand,
Why are pleasable things not included as ascetic practices
And why are painful things included as (these) practices?

(2) The activity of desire is to gather (things);
The activity of anger is to dispute;
And the activity of naivety is like wind
for all the elements (such as fire) –
It causes (the other disturbing emotions) to flare up.

(3) Not meeting with (what you cherish),
you have suffering due to desire.
From not having the force (to overcome enemies),
you have suffering due to anger.
From not fully understanding (reality),
you have naivety.
(Being overpowered) by those (three poisonous attitudes),
you don’t comprehend those (sufferings they cause you as suffering).

(4) Just as you see that (people) do not simultaneously meet
With phlegm and bile;
Likewise, you see that (people) do not simultaneously meet
With desire and anger (toward the same object).

(5) (A spiritual mentor) should use (disciples with) desire as servants.
Why? Because not to be deferential (with them)
is a medicine for their (desire).
But for those with anger, he should treat them as lords,
Because the medicine for their (anger) is (showing them) deference.

(6) First (in the morning), there comes (the) total naivety (of dullness).
Intermediately (during the daytime), there comes anger
(and annoyance with work).
Lastly (at night), desire arises.
Thus the day has these three stages.

(7) Although desire is not a friend, it (appears) like a friend.
Therefore shouldn’t you fear it?
Since it has no benefits,
Shouldn’t people especially rid themselves of this (seeming) friend?

(8) Desire arises from causes (namely, the habit of familiarity)
And desire arises from circumstances
(namely, meeting with an object of desire).
For the desire that arises from circumstances,
it’s easier to establish (the opponents),
But that’s not the case with the other sort.

(9) When anger is firm, it definitely (harms oneself and others).
Destructive, it brings about great faults.
By knowing the characteristics of all these types
(of disturbing emotions),
You’ll be able to bring such emotions to an end.

(10) Just as the cognitive power of the body
(pervades the whole) body,
Naivety abides in all (disturbing emotions).
Therefore, by destroying naivety,
All disturbing emotions will be destroyed.

(11) When (it’s the case that things) come about
by dependently arising, (they cannot be truly existent).
Seeing (this), naivety will not arise.
Therefore, you should make all efforts (in this,
Since) only this topic shall be related in this (text).

(12) The characteristics of always liking to dance and so on,
Giving and receiving (presents),
And keeping (fastidiously) clean and the like
Appear in people having desire.

(13) The Buddhas have said that those with desire
Should in all ways give up having
excellent, good food, clothing and shelter,
And should always abide
In the vicinity of their spiritual mentors.

(14) To become angry with someone you have no ability (to affect)
Only makes your face ugly.
And not to have love for someone you have the ability (to help) –
This is said to be vile.

(15) Unpleasant sounds (of abuse) are said
To put an end to your previously built up negative karmic debts.
(It’s only) those bewildered, by nature, (about cause and effect)
and who aren’t upright,
Who do not accept (them as) a purification.

(16) And even unpleasant (words of abuse) that you hear,
By their essential nature, do you no harm.
Therefore, as (the harm) comes from your own prejudiced thoughts,
It’s the vain who think that it comes from others.

(17) Just as it says (in worldly texts)
That you should punish someone who abuses (you);
Likewise, then why shouldn’t you reward (this same person)
If he says something pleasant (to you)?

(18) Even if no one has spoken of your rebuke-worthy (faults,
they are obvious to everyone.
Therefore) if others should come to know of them,
It’s improper to become angry with the one who’s spoken (of them).
As (this is the case), is there need to mention
(not becoming angry with) those who speak (accusing you) falsely?

(19) (After all), unpleasant (words of abuse) from your inferiors
Do not give rise to anything serious.
Therefore, treat unpleasant (words) from inferiors
As something petty and insignificant
(coming from a child) to someone above him.

(20) Since (retaliating) has not even the slightest benefit
(In reversing) harm already done by others,
It’s only an extension of my (self-)clinging to show you respect
(O mind,) who become angry for no benefit.

(21) If, with patience, you can attain
Great positive force, without effort,
Then who would be foolish enough to prevent this
(By becoming angry)?

(22) You especially don’t generate so-called “anger”
Toward those more powerful (than yourself).
So, how could you possibly be respected
For your anger (directed) at smashing those who are weaker?

(23) Patience toward an object for anger
Gives rise to meditation (on love) for him.
If you think to discard this basis for all good qualities
(because of fearing the opinions of others),
You’re but a fool.

(24) Who can put an end to being slighted
(Even) if you go to your next life?
Therefore, since (if you retaliate, you build up)
negative karmic debts for yourself,
Mind, you should think that to be abused is all right.

(25) (In short,) any (yogi with) a consciousness (that realizes)
That consciousness (itself) is perfectly devoid
of (a truly existing) abiding and so on
Will have no place in his intelligent (mind)
For disturbing emotions to reside.

Seven: Indicating Methods for Ridding Yourself of Craving for Pleasurable Objects That People Enjoy

(1) This ocean of suffering
Has no end at all.
Childish one, why do you not generate fear
At being immersed in it?

(2) Your youth (of the present) has come behind
(your old age of the past)
And will come once again ahead (of it, just after death).
Even if (you’re proud of your youth, thinking) it’ll last,
Yet, in this world, (youth, old age, and death) are like
competitors in a race (vying to come) first.

(3) Since, in compulsive samsara, you don’t have (the power
To guarantee) another (better) rebirth as you wish,
What intelligent person would not have fear,
Being under the power of something else,
(namely, karmic impulses and disturbing emotions)?

(4) There’ll be no end in the future (to your recurring samsaric
rebirths, if you make no effort now) –
Indeed, in all lives (you’ve remained) an ordinary being –
So, make you life (be not meaningless) like that.
Don’t become the same as you’ve been in the past.

(5) The occurrence of a (proper) listener, (teachings) to be listened to,
And one to explain them is extremely rare to find.
Therefore, in short, though recurring samsara won’t be endless
(if these conditions come together),
It’ll have no end (if they’re not).

(6) Most people are not pure,
But are fully inclined toward the direction
(of destructive behavior).
Therefore most ordinary people
Will definitely go to worse rebirth states.

(7) (The suffering of) people on (this) earth,
(which is) the ripening of their negative karmic debts,
Is seen to vie only (with that of the joyless hell realms).
Therefore, compulsive samsaric existence appears
The same as a slaughtering ground to the hallowed (aryas).

(8) If you become mad
From your mind not remaining (under your control),
What wise person would consider as not mad
Someone still living a compulsive samsaric existence?

(9) When you try to turn away from the suffering
of (excessive) walking and so on (by sitting down and so forth,
The pleasure of relief) is seen (eventually) to decline.
Therefore, those with intelligence should enhance their minds
To exhaust all their (throwing) karma.

(10) When a first cause of even one result (such as the mind)
does not appear,
At such a time, at seeing the extensive (results)
Of even a single (negative action),
In whom would the fear (of recurring samsaric existence) not arise?

(11) There’s no certainty that all (worldly karmic) fruits
(Such as prosperity) will come about.
And since even if they do come about, they will come to an end,
Why destroy yourself for their sake?

(12) (Worldly) actions, done with effort, once they are done,
Will disintegrate without any effort.
As this (naturally) happens,
Won’t you ever distance yourself from attachment
to (worldly) actions?

(13) There’s no happiness to be had (in the consciousness) of the past
(since it’s already ceased),
Nor is there in that of the future (for it hasn’t yet occurred).
It’s (the same) with that of the present too, since it will come to pass.
Therefore, for what reason do you (make all this effort)
in karmic actions (for worldly pleasure)?

(14) The wise generate fear even for higher status (states of rebirth)
The same as (they do) for the joyless hell realms.
It’s rare for them not to generate fear
For any situation anywhere in compulsive samsaric existence.

(15) If even childish beings come to understand
the sufferings of recurring samsara in all situations,
(As the aryas do, who realize voidness),
At that very moment, their minds (as ordinary beings)Will simultaneously cease for sure.

(16) Limited beings with arrogance aren’t rare,
And, as those with arrogance have no compassion,
It’s therefore said that it’s extremely hard for them
To go from brighter to brighter (rebirth states).

(17) When you turn your mind (from pleasurable objects) in this (life)
(Because of wishing for higher rebirth),
It’s well known that (in future lives) you’ll still
be focused on them.
As this is a distorted Dharma (practice),
for what reason should this be accepted as correct?

(18) (After all), when you have luxurious objects as the result
of positive karmic force,
You must protect them from (being stolen by) others.
So, how can anyone who must always guard (his wealth)
from (being ruined even by) other (factors, such as the elements),
Ever become his own (master)?

(19) Although you may follow as a Dharma (practice)
Any kind of worldly social custom (such as a marriage ceremony),
Yet, (customs change and) because of that,
Although) worldly (customs) may seem stronger than Dharma ones,
(don’t be lured).

(20) Although (pleasurable) objects may come
to your mind’s (enjoyment as a result) of constructive acts;
Nevertheless, as even those objects are considered badly
(by those wishing liberation),
What need (for them) for those who would accomplish
(something constructive)?
Anyone who gives up (these sources of distraction,
really) becomes virtuous.

(21) Anyone who (due to his having control of his mind)
has no need for (worldly) power and authority,
For him, Dharma practices (to gain such power)
become meaningless.
Anyone who has interest in worldly power and authority
Is called but a fool among the people.

(22) If you crave and desire (to practice) the Dharma
from seeing fruits (of prosperity coming from it) in the future;
Well, if you, who are so desirous, could see
(the worse rebirths that are awaiting)
At the end of this future (prosperous life),
How could you do (this) and not be afraid?

(23) Doing positive actions for a reward is in all ways
The same as (being attached to) a salary.
How could anyone who accepts that any constructive actions
(done like that are also only causes for further samsara)
Ever commit destructive acts?

(24) But those who see wandering beings
To be like illusory people, similar to
(Creations from) a collection of mechanical devises,
Go to a hallowed, extremely radiant state of
The supreme achievement (enlightenment).

(25) (Therefore) for those who, (seeing reality,)
find no joy whatsoever
In any (pleasurable) object of recurring samsara,
Joy in any situation in it
Is something totally inappropriate

Eight: Training Disciples

(1) Just as dissimilar people
Will not stay close friends for long
(when their attachment is gone);
Likewise, desire will not stay for a long time
In those who realize the faults of all (things).

(2) Some have attachment for a certain (object or person);
Some have repulsion for that very same (thing);
And some are insensitive toward it.
Therefore, an object of desire is not (truly existent as such).

(3) There are no such things as (truly) existent desire and so forth
Without conceptual thought (incorrectly considering them to be so).
Who among those with intelligence would hold
(Both) perfectly established deepest (existence)
and (existence established by merely) conceptual thought?

(4) There’s no such thing as any (male)
being (inherently) bound together
With any (female).
If you were (truly existently) bound together to someone else,
It would be illogical for you ever to become separated.

(5) Those with little positive force
Won’t even entertain doubts about this teaching (on voidness).
But merely by entertaining doubts (about it),
Your compulsive existence will become threadbare.

(6) Anyone who has no respect for the teachings (of voidness),
Which the Able Sage (Buddha) has said (once realized
Will bring) an increase (of your positive force) up to liberation,
Clearly has no intelligence.

(7) (You might say,) “I shall pass beyond sorrow (with nirvana),”
But, without seeing void (phenomena) to be devoid (of true existence),
The Thusly Gone (Buddha) has said that
You can’t pass beyond sorrow with a distorted view.

(8) It’s from (the Buddha’s scriptures), from which teachings derive
on the (samsaric) world,
That (you get) the discussions about (how you) enter (it
because of unawareness);
And it’s from (the Buddha’s scriptures), from which
the explications of deepest (voidness) derive,
That (you get) the discussions about (how to) turn away
(from it).

(9) If you are brought to generate fear by thinking,
“(If things were devoid of true existence)
Everything would be (totally) nonexistent,
And so what is the use (to make effort to gain liberation)?
Well, if actions (actually) had truly established existence,
(Realization of) this teaching (of voidness)
could not bring the action about of reversing (samsara).

(10) If you have attachment to your own position (of voidness)
and dislike for the other position (of true existence),
You’ll be unable to pass beyond sorrow (to nirvana.
This is because) peace will not come to those who act
With (grasping for a truly existent) duality
(of what’s to be accepted and what’s to be rejected).

(11) (When you realize) that there are no (truly existent actions) to do,
you pass beyond sorrow (into nirvana),
But by doing (actions you think are truly existent),
you become reborn (in samsara) over and again.
Therefore, as it’s no tax to your mind,
The state beyond sorrow is easy to attain,
which is not the case with the other alternative.

(12) How can anyone who has no disgust
with this (samsaric existence)
Have respect for (the state of) peace?
Like from their homes, renouncing themselves
from this compulsive existence (they imagine to be pleasant)
Will indeed be difficult (for them) to do.

(13) It can be seen that some (people), overwhelmed with suffering,
Wish to kill themselves.
But because of their naivety at such times,
It ends up that they don’t pass to a topmost pure state
(beyond sorrow).

(14) (Buddha) spoke about generosity for those of least (capacity),
He spoke about moral discipline for those who are middling
And, for those who are of supreme (capacity), he spoke about
(voidness, the method) to pacify (all suffering).
Therefore, always (aspire to) make yourself supreme.

(15) First, you turn away from demeritorious (actions);
Intermediately, you turn away from (grasping at a gross) self;
And, finally, you turn away from all views (of true existence).
Anyone who knows (these stages for leading a disciple) is wise.

(16) (Buddha) has explained that anyone who’s the seer
of (the voidness of) one phenomenon,
That (person) is the seer of (the voidness of) everything.
That which is the voidness of one (thing) is, by nature,
(The same as) the voidness of all (things).

(17) The Thusly Gone (Buddhas) spoke about (generating)
attachment to (constructive) Dharma practices
To those desiring higher rebirth.
But if this very (attachment to constructive practice)
will spoil (the chances) of those who would wish for liberation,
What need to mention the other (alternative –
attachment to destructive ones)?

(18) Those who wish (to bring about) positive force (in others)
Don’t teach (them) voidness every time.
Wouldn’t medicine prescribed at the wrong occasion
Become a poison?

(19) Just as barbarians will be unable to comprehend (teachings
In) languages other (than their own);
Likewise, worldly ones will be unable to comprehend (voidness)
Without (first) understanding (the conventional truth) about the world.

(20) (Buddha) indeed taught (true) existence,
Non-(true) existence, both (true) existence
And non-(true) existence, and neither of the two.
In accordance with the sickness, can’t anything be called a medicine?

(21) If you (fully) see the pure (view of voidness,
you go) to a supreme abode (of liberation),
And if you see it a little, (you go) to an excellent rebirth state.
Therefore, those who are wise should always enhance their intelligence
To reflect on (the voidness of) their inner selves.

(22) Having realized the facts of reality,
Even if you do not achieve a (nirvana) state beyond sorrow
in this (lifetime),
It is certain that you’ll achieve it with no effort in your next rebirth,
Just like (what happens with the type of) karma
(that ripens in your next life).

(23) It’s extremely rare for all actions to bring about
(their results) as intended.
Yet, it’s not that in these (teachings) there can be no nirvana release.
(It’s just that) meeting (the conducive conditions)
And thus liberation are difficult to find.

(24) By hearing that the body has no good qualities,
Desire and attachment (for one) will not remain long.
(Thus) by this very pathway of mind
(of meditating on dependent arising)
Won’t (your disturbing emotions) all be depleted?

(25) Just as you can see the end of a seed (when it gets burned),
Although (the line it has come from) has no beginning;
Likewise, (when you’ve eliminated unawareness,)
Rebirth indeed will not come to happen,
because its causes will not be complete.




--------------------------------------
Technorati: Buddhism Buddha Buddhist Dharma Compassion Wisdom Religion Meditation Zen Philosophy Spirituality Aryadeva Peace Insight

Read more!

Four Hundred Verse Treatise Chapters on the Actions of a Bodhisattva's Yoga (Chapters 1 - 4)

(Byang-chub sems-dpa'i rnal-'byor spyod-pa bzhi-brgya-pa'i bstan-bcos kyi tshig-le'ur byas-pa, Skt. Bodhisattva-yogacarya-catu:shataka-shastra-karika)

by Aryadeva

translated by Alexander Berzin, 1978 according to the commentary of Gyeltsabjey
(rGyal-tshab rJe Dar-ma rin-chen)










Chapters 1 - 4
Chapters 5 - 8
Chapters 9 - 12
Chapters 13 - 16

* Chapter One: Indicating Methods for Ridding Yourself of Grasping (at the Body as) Permanent
* Chapter Two: Indicating Methods for Ridding Yourself of Grasping (at the Body as) Pleasurable
* Chapter Three: Indicating Methods for Ridding Yourself of Grasping (at the Body as) Clean
* Chapter Four: Indicating Methods for Ridding Yourself of Grasping (at the Body as Having) an Impossible “Self” (about Which To Feel Pride)

[Translator’s note: This loose translation was made in 1978, with extensive material in parentheses added from Gyeltsabjey’s commentary and from explanations by Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey and Geshe Sonam Rinchen in order to make the terse verses more readable and intelligible. Consequently, the translation is neither completely literal nor totally precise. Most of the technical terminology has been updated in June 2007 to accord with that which I have used on this website and a few further changes have been made in accord with the explnataion given by His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Hamburg in July 2007. A full retranslation of the text, however, awaits a future date. Until then, however, perhaps this early, loose version alone will be of some benefit.]

I prostrate to the Arya Manjushri.

One: Indicating Methods for Ridding Yourself of Grasping (at the Body as) Permanent

(1) As the master over the three planes of perishable existence,
The Lord of Death, by self-nature, is without a creator,
What could be more improper than to fall asleep
While the real situation is that he will definitely come.

(2) Having been born for the sake of coming to die
And, under the power of other (things), having the situation
of going (ever closer to your end),
It would appear as though you were going to die,
Not as though you were going to live.

(3) You may see as short your time already spent,
And the future as otherwise,
But (whether) you think of these as equal or unequal,
It would seem as though you should cry out in fear at the obvious.

(4) If death is not fearsome to you because it is something general,
Shared with all others as well,
Does it make you suffer with jealousy
When it ravages someone (else)?

(5) Although (you might feel that) since sickness can be cured
and old age can be treated,
You need have no fear when they (come);
Nevertheless, as there is no cure for your future demise,
You should fear what is grossly obvious.

(6) Death is common to everyone:
(We’re) like cattle about to be slaughtered.
As you have seen death come in fact to others,
How can you not fear the Lord of Death?

(7) Because the time (of your death) is uncertain,
You might feel, “I am permanent.”
Yet nevertheless, at some time,
The Lord of Death is going to ravage you.

(8) If you sell yourself, looking for gain in the future (of this life),
But not at the fact that your life is depleting,
Would any kind person say you were smart
(And knew) your own nature?

(9) You have (simply) pawned yourself (for a future karmic debt).
To commit a destructive act for any reason
You certainly need to be totally free of clinging to a self,
As are the wise (arhats).

(10) This thing called “life,” no matter whose,
is nothing but (a phenomenon
That passes from) moment to moment of the mind.
But beings have not ascertained this and are thus unaware.
To be certain of this and know your own nature is rare.

(11) If you take pleasure in (the continuity of your life)
lasting a long time
And yet you do not delight in the signs of old age –
Oh dear, such action as yours would appear as correct
Only to ordinary folk like yourself.

(12) When you should be grieving about your own death,
Why do you (grieve) about (the death of) your children?
You yourself are going to be snatched,
But if you (only) carry on (about others)
why should you not be ridiculed (by the wise)?

(13) When it is so that certain beings, without requesting,
Become your own children,
Then it is not at all improper
That they should depart as well, without asking (permission).

(14) Because of naivety, you completely refuse
To be without biased thought toward your child,
But his desire to depart
Is demonstrated by his old age.

(15) To a father, his son is adorable,
But (to his son) he does not generate similar (feelings).
Such a worldly one (because of attachment to his children)
goes to a worse (rebirth).
For this reason, birth in a higher status is difficult to find.

(16) When (a son) is disobedient,
no one would call him adorable.
And when (he is obedient),
Your attachment is merely generated
(in exchange for) a certain cause,
As in a business transaction.

(17) The suffering that swells at parting
Quickly wanes from people’s hearts.
This example of losing the suffering (that comes)
even in connection with attachment
Demonstrates (attachment’s) infirmity.

(18) (To conform with convention at another’s death)
Even if you decide to inflict harm on yourself
(in a show of mock grief,) while realizing it has no advantage,
You’ve become an outward hypocrite to your nature,
And this, in addition, is unjust to yourself.

(19) These worldly beings, as if brimming over with suffering,
wander about (from one birth to the next).
So what is the use of filling yourself up with (further) suffering
(By currying friendship) with (some other) person
Who will (only) bring you suffering (when you have to part)?

(20) Whatever (happiness) there may be
At gathering with someone,
Why isn’t there (the same) happiness at parting?
Don’t gathering and parting come one with the other?

(21) As the past has no beginning and the future has no end,
Why do you look (only at the short time of) being together
And not at that of when being apart,
Even though it’s for so much longer?

(22) Periods of time, such as instants and so forth,
(By robbing your life) act as an enemy.
Therefore, by no means should you have longing desire
For these things that act as an enemy.

(23) O base-minded one, if due to your fear of separation,
You do not renounce and leave your home,
Then that which wise ones would definitely do
Will be enacted to you as your sentence (by the Lord of Death).

(24) If you think that after attending to these (homely affairs)
Then for sure you will go (into retreat) in the forest,
Well, no matter what you have attended to,
You’ll have to give up (when you die),
So what advantage is there in having attended to it?

(25) Anyone who has gained conviction, thinking, “I shall die,”
Has fully abandoned attachment,
And because of this, what fear has he
Even for the Lord of Death?

Two: Indicating Methods for Ridding Yourself of Grasping (at the Body as) Pleasurable

(1) Although your body is like an enemy,
Yet, you need to take care of it.
Living a long life with ethical discipline,
You can do many positive (deeds).

(2) People receive suffering from their very bodies,
But happiness from other (external sources).
Why are you so devoted to your body,
Which acts as a container for all your sufferings?

(3) When it’s a fact that happiness does not come to people
In as great a proportion as suffering (does),
How can you think that this greater (amount of) suffering
Is less (than your happiness)?

(4) Although worldly beings rush after happiness,
Those who become happy are indeed rare to find.
Therefore, it seems as though suffering is running (behind)
after these beings,
Who disintegrate (from moment to moment).

(5) Although suffering can be found by wishing (for it),
Where is there happiness for (merely) the wish?
How is it that you’re so devoted to what’s rare?
Why don’t you fear what is plentiful?

(6) The body that can become (a little) happy
Acts as a container for (much more) suffering.
Therefore, being devoted to your body
and being devoted to your enemy –
These two seem to be the same.

(7) The body cannot change into having a nature of happiness,
Even if (you try) for a very long time (to make it change).
It’s illogical to say that through other (circumstances)
Its nature (of suffering) can be overruled.

(8) To those in privileged (positions comes) mental suffering,
While to common folks physical (suffering) arises.
By these two sufferings
This world is tormented, day after day, every day.

(9) Happiness is dictated by your thoughts,
And your thoughts can be dictated by your suffering.
Because of that, nowhere is there anything
More powerful than suffering.

(10) As much as time passes,
So does your suffering increase.
Because of that, it appears as though happiness
Is but like an incongruous (guest) of the body.

(11) Many causes of suffering appear,
(Such as) sicknesses and others,
But the causes for people to be happy
Do not appear to the same (extent).

(12) You can see how happiness,
While increasing, (easily) reverses,
But while suffering is increasing,
It doesn’t (easily) reverse like that.

(13) You see causes for happiness
Simultaneously (producing) the reverse,
But not causes for suffering themselves
Simultaneously (producing) the reverse.

(14) During the course of dying (throughout your lifetime),
You’ve traveled, are now traveling, and will (continue) to travel
(Ever closer to your death).
In no way is it proper to regard (life’s) course of dying
as bringing happiness.

(15) Beings with bodies are constantly tormented
By hunger and the like.
In no way is it proper to regard as happiness
(Life’s) course of being tormented.

(16) What’s known as (your body) is produced
When there’s gathered together all its (four) elements,
which (individually) lack the ability (to produce it).
As these (elements by nature mutually) clash,
In no way is it proper to regard them as happiness.

(17) Because there’s cold and such things,
There’s no permanent cure (for suffering).
In no way is it proper to regard as happiness
(This body that’s always) breaking down.

(18) As there are no (seemingly pleasurable) activities on earth
That can be said to come about without toil and effort,
In no way is it proper to regard as happiness,
(That which requires) the doing of (miserable) work.

(19) (Those who are wise) would always guard against accumulating
(at the expense of some small and ephemeral pleasure)
Negative karmic debts for this or other (lives).
In no way is it proper to regard as happiness
That which will have (you reborn) in one of the worse states.

(20) For people, there’s never any happiness
From riding (horses) and so forth.
What, at first, it’s not intended for
(namely to bring you suffering,
Only) increases in the end; so what’s the use?

(21) Just as some people become happy when they vomit
(If it’s) into a golden pot,
Likewise, think of your happiness
As (petty) relief from suffering.

(22) What you initiate to reverse (suffering) that’s arisen,
only brings on (further, new) suffering;
So how is there happiness?
That’s why the Able Sage (Buddha) has said,
“Both when you’re born and fall apart, it’s (only with) suffering.”
Think about that!

(23) Ordinary beings do not see their suffering
When it’s apparently glossed over with (temporary) happiness.
But, if their so-called happiness (were real and everlasting),
It couldn’t again be obscured by suffering under any (conditions).

(24) “If you regard your suffering (body as pleasurable),
You’ll not become free from attachment” –
This has been taught for ordinary beings.
Therefore, it’s certain that the Thusly Gone (Buddhas) have said
(That such a distorted view of the body) is the lowest (type) of all naivety.

(25) Impermanent things definitely receive harm
(in order to pass away),
And whatever can be harmed cannot be (a source of) happiness.
Therefore, that which is impermanent (such as the body)
Would be called, by everyone, suffering.

Three: Indicating Methods for Ridding Yourself of Grasping (at the Body as) Clean

(1) Even if you (make use of a pleasurable) object
for a very long time,
There’s never an end (when you’re totally satisfied).
Like a bad doctor, the exhausting (efforts
You make) for your body will have no effect.

(2) Just as some (earthworms), who devote themselves
(to eating dirt),
Can never reverse their craving for dirt;
Likewise, for people who devote themselves
(to indulging their cravings),
Their desires for them only increase.

(3) As all women (are a composite of dirty substances),
There is not the slightest difference at all
in having intercourse (with any of them).
As their bodies will be enjoyed by others as well
(for instance, by vultures and worms when they’re dead),
What can a woman of superior (beauty) do for you?

(4) Anyone can find anyone else attractive
And become infatuated with them and rejoice (in their beauty).
But as this is common even among dogs and such
(with respect to their mates),
O dull-witted one, why are you so attached (to yours)?

(5) Any woman who (seems) beautiful to you in all her limbs
Has prior (to meeting you) been commonly (enjoyed) by everyone.
(So when you) find her, don’t become at all as astonished as you do
(And become attached to her as solely your own).

(6) If you see beautiful (women) with good qualities (as attractive)
And those who are opposite as the reverse,
Well, as no one can be categorized (as having
only good qualities or only bad),
Of the former or the other, which one is truly
(attractive or repulsive)?

(7) The desire of a fool doesn’t arise only for
(women) having good qualities.
(Rather, the desire) of those who become involved with (women)
who are not (reasonable) causes (for attachment
Comes) from causes (that would normally produce)
The opposite (effect). What’s (the reason) for this?

(8) A woman (who has excessive desire for you)
is like a bad (contagious) disease:
She’ll remain with you (only) so long as she doesn’t come to know
another (man’s taste).
As she must always be guarded from such circumstances,
(Don’t ever feel secure in her love and become attached).

(9) When you’re old, (the promiscuous escapades)
you had in your youth
Will no longer be (so obsessively) desirous.
So why should (arhats) who’ve become liberated
Not be thoroughly disgusted with these (amorous follies of youth).

(10) Those with no attachment (to women)
do not (consider) as happiness (being with a woman);
While those (who do have attachment) are not unbeguiled.
Therefore, what kind of happiness does someone have
Whose mind is always turned away (from the nature of reality
toward attachment to women? It is not supreme).

(11) You’ll not always be able to stay together
With the woman to whom you’re so devoted.
Therefore, to hold on to the notion that this one is mine
And not anyone else’s – what is this for?

(12) If attachment (to women) were happiness,
then there would be no purpose
For (Buddha to have taught) purifying oneself
of (attachment to) women,
(since it would eliminate happiness);
And no matter how much (you look),
you don’t see (in the scriptures),
“Happiness is to be given up.”

(13) Even when you’re in union with a woman,
Your happiness comes from other (causes besides the woman,
Such as your disturbing emotions, fantasies, and so forth).
Who but a fool would maintain that its cause
was (only) his wife herself?

(14) Like a leper scratching (his sores),
Being blinded by longing desire (to scratch)
and not seeing the faults of his desire,
Those with attachment (who indulge their desires)
Appear as having suffering like a leper
to those who are free from attachment.

(15) During a famine, whatever acts (of humiliation and abuse)
Befall those who are protectorless and tormented with hunger,
(which they’re willing to endure from a miserly rich man
in the hope for some food) –
Such are what toss about all those with attachment,
When they’ve met with a woman (and are willing to endure
in the hope for some pleasure).

(16) Some people out of arrogant pride
Develop attachment even for their latrines
(and so never let anyone else make use of them);
And some people who are attached to certain women
Are jealous of some (other men).

(17) If out of ignorance (you soiled yourself) with something unclean,
It’s proper that you would become repulsed,
Whereas in no way would it be proper for you
To become desirous and attached.

(18) Except for (half-witted) people,
(Everyone) would look down upon a vessel of filthy
(vomit and excrement).
Therefore, why don’t you consider
as something to be looked down upon
That from which this filth comes?

(19) When you look at the end (result
of what happens to) any and every clean object
(After it’s come in contact with a woman’s body,
such as the food she eats),
What intelligent person would say,
“This (body of a woman) has (a nature of) cleanliness”?

(20) Anyone who’s resided inside the latrine (of a mother’s womb)
Where, if there weren’t this (filthy liquid) he couldn’t stay (there),
Such (a person, who as a foetus is) like a filthy worm,
Could only develop arrogant pride (that his body is clean)
because of his thick-headedness.

(21) No matter what method (you use to wash),
You cannot make the innermost parts of your body be clean.
If you want to make efforts (to clean) the inside (of your body),
It will not (come about by directing your efforts)
on its outside like this.

(22) If (some of them) had leprosy,
All people covered with urine would not be alike.
Just as those (non-lepers) covered with urine
(would hold their noses) at the lepers,
Likewise they themselves would be avoided by everybody else.

(23) Just as some (lepers) with rotted appendages try
To make themselves look jolly with an artificial nose,
Likewise (vain) is your desire to make yourself attractive
With added flowers and so forth, because (your body’s) unclean.

(24) Anyone who’s become free from desire and attachment
(Would consider it) improper to say, “This (body) is clean.”
Therefore, there can be no phenomenon whatsoever
That can become a cause for definitely making (the body)
Desirable and attractive.

(25) In short, impermanence, uncleanliness, suffering
And lack of an impossible “self” —
All four can exist in one (phenomenon,
Namely your own body).

Four: Indicating Methods for Ridding Yourself of Grasping (at the Body as Having) an Impossible “Self” (about Which To Feel Pride)

(1) What hallowed (arhat) in the world
would develop arrogant pride
Thinking, “I (am king and this land is exclusively) mine”?
Why, because all lands are equally (used)
By everybody (on them).

(2) As a servant of the masses, having been apportioned
one-sixth (as your wage),
What is the reason for your arrogant pride?
Whatever (is to be done), you have to do that.
This comes from your having been (appointed) under their power.

(3) It’s vanity for a masterly (king) to think he’s a (generous) patron
When he gives (his people) what ought to be given,
Just as it would be for a masterly (employer) to think of himself as a patron
When he gives his workers (just) their due gain.

(4) Others (who are wise regard your prosperity and power)
as a situation of suffering,
But you (O King) regard it as the reverse.
You who must earn your livelihood by working (to protect) others,
How can this cause your happiness to grow?

(5) As protector of the world (if you feel you can be arrogant,
Well,) to be able to protect (the people,
even though you’re) the ruler of the land,
You have to be looked after (by those you protect).

Why then for one (petty reason) do you have arrogance?
Why aren’t you parted from arrogance because of the other (reason,
namely, that you have to be provided for)?

(6) Since among all the castes (everybody) gloats
at their own karma and work,
It’s difficult to find anyone who makes his livelihood
(without pride and attachment).
If, since (you share one-sixth of the people’s income),
you also receive (one-sixth of their) destructive (karmic debts),
Then, for you, an excellent rebirth shall be rare.

(7) Anyone who must do (whatever) others demand
Is known on this earth as a fool,
And there is no one else equal to you
In being under the control of others’ (wishes).

(8) If thinking, “The protection (of the people) depends on me,”
You (forcefully) extract tribute from the world
And (in the process) you yourself, in fact, commit negative deeds,
(such as by executing those who don’t pay),
Then who can be equal to this in unkindness?

(9) If it were improper to treat criminals kindly,
Then you shouldn’t protect
Any childish ordinary being (either, with kindness,
For they’ve all been naughty).

(10) As (treating others badly) can in no way be a cause
for enhancing your own happiness,
It doesn’t bring this about.
Although (you may justify killing animals, for instance,)
For reasons such as (it’s permitted
according to seemingly correct) scriptural authority,
Nevertheless, as it’s not something positive,
(your negative karmic debts) will have no end.

(11) If it were righteous for a ruler of a land to act (with cruelty),
Thinking, “I’m doing this (to provide the people
with) perfect protection,”
Then why wouldn’t deluded manufacturers (of weapons)
Also become righteous?

(12) A ruler of the land, (who thinks that) the world depends
on the ruler of the land (for its existence and maintenance),
Would be looked down upon (for his presumptuous pride).
The hallowed (aryas), for instance, see that the mother
(producing) the entire world
Is craving for existence (and not the king).

(13) Unless you are an (unscrupulous, power-crazed) fool,
you do not obtain a kingdom.
And since (such) fools have no kindness,
Then an unkind ruler of men, even if he’s their protector,
Cannot (be said to) abide in the Dharma.

(14) All the activities (permitted for a king
in the writings of) the rishi (non-Buddhist sages)
Haven’t been formulated by the most learned ones.
Why? Because among these (rishis)
There are inferior, middling and distinguished superior ones.

(15) In ancient times, the virtuous rulers of the land
Treated the people like (their own) children.
But the present-day ones,
Who rely on wartime philosophies,
Make (the land as desolate) as a wilderness of animals.

(16) If a king weren’t to have any negative karmic debts
From beating (a state enemy) when he had the chance,
Then neither would any other mugger
Have had such (karmic debts from his crimes) in the first place.

(17) As it’s not a (proper) offering to give away
all your possessions for drinks and the like,
How can you think it is a (proper) offering (bringing higher rebirth)
To give away your very own (life) in a battle?

(18) O king, as the protector of the world,
you yourself are completely protectorless.
As the nature of being a protector is (such
That with no one to restrain or advise you, you’re reckless
and) do not give up (the causes for a lower rebirth),
Who would be happy (to be a king)?

(19) O king, your fame (of being a severe ruler)
Will contribute nothing to your advantage, especially when you die.
It will be of no advantage at all,
(Otherwise) why do those who cook dogs (alive)
not (enjoy) a great reputation?

(20) As it is a fact that having authority over all (the kingdom)
Comes from positive karmic force (built up in past lives),
You can’t find anyone who would say,
“This (ordinary subject) cannot count on having authority
(in some future life, if he builds up the karma).”

(21) (After all) it’s related that castes (evolved) in this world
For all the methods of livelihood that were.
Therefore, for all limited beings, there are no (truly existing
And definite) caste divisions (from the beginning).

(22) A long time has passed (since caste divisions were first drawn)
And women’s minds are fickle (often bearing the children
of men of different castes).
Therefore, there isn’t anyone who is from a (definite, pure) caste
Who can say he’s (totally) of the royal caste.

(23) If activity (determined your caste)
Then even an outcaste, (by protecting others,) should be called
a member of the royal caste,
And by the activity (of reading the Vedas)
Why shouldn’t even an outcaste be considered to have become a brahmin?

(24) A king cannot distribute, as he can (the material fruits of his) authority,
His negative karmic debts (incurred in gathering this wealth).
Therefore, what wise person would destroy his future
For the sake of (some trivial) benefit to others?

(25) Those who generate pride over their authority
Need to look at others who (also) have power –
Their equals or especially their superiors.
(Pride) doesn’t remain in the hearts of sublime ones
(who understand in this way).


--------------------------------------
Technorati: Buddhism Buddha Buddhist Dharma Compassion Wisdom Religion Meditation Zen Philosophy Aryadeva Inspiration Peace Insight

Read more!

The Nature of Mind

What is the mind? It is nothing other than what is merely imputed by the mind in dependence upon the phenomenon that has no color, no shape, and no material substance. It is different from the body, which has color and shape and is substantial. The consciousness of the body, or the body sense, experiences objects, but the body itself doesn't perform that function.

Clearly perceiving objects is what defines the mind. The basic definition of mind is that which is clear and able to perceive objects. Clear doesn't necessarily mean that the way the mind sees an object accords with reality. Here clear means simply seeing an object clearly, whether rightly or wrongly. For example, from a distance somebody in a department store might see a store mannequin as a real person, because the shape and posture of the body are like those of a normal person. Somebody could look at a mannequin and think, "Oh, there's a person there!" They give the label "person" to the mannequin because it has the shape of a person, and they then believe in their label. The mannequin then appears to them as a real person, even though in reality there's no actual person there, from the top of the head down to the toes. It's simply a mannequin. An actual person doesn't exist there. First of all the person sees the base, the shape of a human body; because of that they label "person" and believe in that label. It then appears to them as a person. Even though that appearance is not true, it is a clear appearance to their mind.

Another example is someone with bile disease* seeing a white snow mountain as yellow in color. Even though the appearance of a yellow mountain is not true, it's clear to that hallucinated mind. It is similar with the effects of datura and other drugs. Because of the effect of a drug, someone can see the whole ground as crawling worms. Even though it is not true, what appears is clear to that hallucinated mind.

Here in the definition of mind, clear doesn't necessarily mean that the object you're seeing accords with reality. Whether it's a false object or a true one, it appears clearly to the mind.

Just as there's no such thing as objects appearing clearly to the body, there's no such thing as objects appearing clearly to rocks, trees, and other substantial things. Clear has to do with perception. Rocks, trees, and other substantial things don't have perception; nothing appears to them. Perception has to do with the mind. Appearance is a production, or creation, of the mind. The body and these other substantial things have only form; they don't have perception. The mind has perception; it is only to the mind that things appear.

As I've already said, the general definition of the characteristics of the mind is that which is clear and able to perceive objects. Clear means in the sense of seeing objects clearly, though not necessarily in accord with reality. Generally, the mind sees an object clearly, whether that object is appearing falsely or in accord with reality. So, that which is clear and able to perceive objects refers to both the hallucinated mind and the valid mind. This definition refers to both an ordinary sentient being's mind and to a fully enlightened being's mind, which is free from all hallucinations.

The nature of the mind is clear light. The mind doesn't exist from its own side. The mind that appears to exist from its own side is completely empty of existing from its own side. The mind that exists is simply the mind that is merely imputed by the mind in dependence upon the base to be labeled "mind." That base is not the body, but the shapeless, colorless phenomenon that is clear and able to perceive objects. In dependence upon that phenomenon "mind" is merely imputed by the mind. How does the mind exist? The mind exists in dependence upon that base, that phenomenon that has the qualities of being non-substantial and clear and able to perceive objects, and the thought that labels it. In dependence upon these two, the base and the thought, mind exists.

So, what is the mind? It is nothing other than what is merely imputed by thought in dependence upon this particular phenomenon with this nature and function. Since the mind is merely imputed by thought in dependence upon this base, the mind is completely empty of existing from its own side. This is the clear light nature of the mind.

It is the clear light nature of the mind that gives us the potential to achieve any happiness that we wish. It is the clear light nature of the mind that gives us every hope. It gives us the opportunity to be completely liberated from all problems, from true suffering and true causes of suffering, and to actualize the clear light nature of the mind. It is because of this clear light nature of the mind that we can achieve ultimate happiness, besides temporary peace and happiness in our daily life. This is what gives us the opportunity to end the entire suffering of samsara, the continuation of which did not have a beginning. It is the clear light nature of the mind that gives us the possibility of ending the continuation of suffering, of samsara, even though it does not have a beginning.

Besides achieving liberation, ultimate happiness for self, we can completely cease even the subtle obscurations, the imprints left on our mental continuum by the ignorance holding the concept of true existence and other disturbing thoughts. In this way our mind can become completely pure, without any faults. It becomes omniscient mind, which can directly see all past, present, and future existence.

Because of this clear light nature of the mind, we have every hope of obtaining any happiness that we want. No matter how strong our ignorance, anger, desire, self-cherishing, and other delusions are and no matter how much heavy negative karma we have created, these things are not permanent; all these obscurations are temporary. Like fog in the sky, they are not permanent; they will not always be there. They are dependent arisings. In dependence upon causes and conditions, fog happens and obscures the sun or moon and the sky. Then, in dependence upon other causes and conditions, such as the karma of sentient beings and wind, the fog goes away.

It is the same with a dirty cloth. The dirt is temporary, not permanent. In dependence upon causes and conditions, the cloth becomes dirty, and then in dependence upon other causes and conditions, the cloth can become clean. In dependence upon soap and water, the dirt will go away.

In dependence upon causes and conditions, a mirror can be covered by dust, so that it can't give a clear reflection. But in dependence upon other causes and conditions, the dirt can be removed, so that the mirror can give a clear reflection. One small mirror can give a clear reflection of a whole city.

In a similar way, no matter how strong our delusions are or how much heavy negative karma we have created, like fog in the sky or dirt in a cloth or dust on a mirror, they are not permanent. Our mind is temporarily obscured, because the nature of our mind is not one, or mixed, with our delusions and negative karma. No matter how black with dirt a cloth is, because the cloth is not one with the dirt, it can always be cleaned. No matter how thick the dust on a mirror is, the mirror can always be cleaned. Like this, no matter how strong our delusions are and how heavy the negative karma we have created, since our mind is not one with them, there is always hope; there is always the potential for our mind to be separated from these obscurations. Our mind can become completely pure, free from all these obscurations, all these causes of suffering.

First, the ultimate nature of the mind is clear light; the mind is empty of existing from its own side. Because of this, the mind is not mixed with the obscurations, with the delusions and negative karmas. Second, realizing the ultimate nature of the I and of the mind eradicates ignorance, which is the basis of anger, attachment, and all the other disturbing thoughts. Realizing the ultimate nature of the mind ceases ignorance, the concept of a truly existent mind, and all the other delusions, all the other wrong conceptions, that are based on it. It then ceases the negative karmas produced by these delusions, as well as all the sufferings that arise from these delusions and negative karmas.

By developing method, or compassion, along with this wisdom realizing the nature of the I and the mind, you are able to completely cease even the subtle obscurations of the mind. In this way your mind becomes completely free from all faults and perfected in all realizations. Such a mind is a fully enlightened mind, a buddha's mind.

*Note: Tibetan medicine regards diseases as disturbances of the basic humors of wind, bile, and phlegm. Bile disorders are related to the liver.

Lama Zopa Rinpoche gave this teaching in Auckland, New Zealand, October 1990. Edited from the Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive by Ailsa Cameron.




--------------------------------------
Technorati: Buddhism Buddha Buddhist Dharma Compassion Wisdom Religion Meditation Zen Philosophy Spirituality Lama Zopa Rinpoche Peace Insight

Read more!

Verse 27 - Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness

Because of the unobstructed nature of the mind, there is a continuous arising of appearances.
Like the waves and the waters of the ocean, which are not two (different things),
Whatever arises is liberated into the natural state of the mind.
However many different names are applied to it in this unceasing process of naming things,
With respect to its real meaning, the mind (of the individual) does not exist other than as one.
And, moreover, this singularity is without any foundation and devoid of any root.
But, even though it is one, you cannot look for it in any particular direction.
It cannot be seen as an entity located somewhere, because it is not created or made by anything.
Nor can it be seen as just being empty, because there exists the transparent radiance of its own luminous clarity and awareness.
Nor can it be seen as diversified, because emptiness and clarity are inseparable.
Immediate self-awareness is clear and present.
Even though activities exist, there is no awareness of an agent who is the actor.
Even though they are without any inherent nature, experiences are actually experienced.
If you practice in this way, then everything will be liberated.
With respect to your own sense faculties, everything will be understood immediately without any intervening operations of the intellect.
Just as is the case with the sesame seed being the cause of the oil and the milk being the cause of butter,
But where the oil is not obtained without pressing and the butter is not obtained without churning,
So all sentient beings, even though they possess the actual essence of Buddhahood,
Will not realize Buddhahood without engaging in practice.
If he practices, then even a cowherd can realize liberation.
Even though he does not know the explanation, he can systematically establish himself in the experience of it.
(For example) when one has had the experience of actually tasting sugar in one's own mouth,
One does not need to have that taste explained by someone else.
Not understanding this (intrinsic awareness), even Panditas can fall into error.
Even though they are exceedingly learned and knowledgeable in explaining the nine vehicles,
It will only be like spreading rumors of places which they have not seen personally.
And with respect to Buddhahood, they will not even approach it for a moment.
If you understand (intrinsic awareness), all of your merits and sins will be liberated into their own condition.
But if you do not understand it, any virtuous or vicious deeds that you commit
Will accumulate as karma leading to transmigration in heavenly rebirth or to rebirth in the evil destinies respectively.
But if you understand this empty primal awareness which is your own mind,
The consequences of merit and of sin will never come to be realized,
Just as a spring cannot originate in the empty sky.
In the state of emptiness itself, the object of merit or of sin is not even created.
Therefore, your own manifest self-awareness comes to see everything nakedly.
This self-liberation through seeing with naked awareness is of such great profundity,
And, this being so, you should become intimately acquainted with self-awareness.
Profoundly sealed!


Verse 27,
Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness,
Padmasambhava

~End of Post~





--------------------------------------
Technorati: Buddhism Buddha Buddhist Dharma Compassion Wisdom Religion Meditation Zen Philosophy Spirituality Padmasambhava Peace Insight

Read more!

Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness

by Padmasambhava

1.Here is contained "Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness,"
this being a Direct Introduction to the State of Intrinsic Awareness,
From "The Profound Teaching of Self-Liberation in the Primordial State of the Peaceful and Wrathful Deities."

2.Homage to the Trikaya and to the Deities who represent the inherent luminous clarity of intrinsic awareness.

3.Herein I shall teach "Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness," which is a direct introduction to intrinsic awareness
From "The Profound Teaching of Self-Liberation in the Primordial State of the Peaceful and Wrathful Deities."
Truly, this introduction to your own intrinsic awareness Should be contemplated well, O fortunate sons of a noble family!
SAMAYA gya gya gya

4.Emaho!
It is the single (nature of) mind which encompasses all of Samsara and Nirvana.
Even though its inherent nature has existed from the very beginning, you have not recognized it;
Even though its clarity and presence has been uninterrupted, you have not yet encountered its face.
Even though its arising has nowhere been obstructed, still you have not comprehended it.
Therefore, this (direct introduction) is for the purpose of bringing you to self-recognition.
Everything that is expounded by the Victorious Ones of the three times
In the eighty-four thousand Gateways to the Dharma.
Is incomprehensible (unless you understand intrinsic awareness).
Indeed, the Victorious Ones do not teach anything other than the understanding of this.
Even though there exist unlimited numbers of scriptures, equal in their extent to the sky,
Yet with respect to the real meaning, there are three statements that will introduce you to your own intrinsic awareness.
This introduction to the manifest Primordial State of the Victorious One
Is disclosed by the following method for entering into the practice where there exists no antecedent nor subsequent practices.

5.Kye-ho!
O my fortunate sons, listen!
Even though that which is usually called "mind" is widely esteemed and much discussed,
Still it is not understood or it is wrongly understood or it is understood in a one-sided manner only.
Since it is not understood correctly just as it is in itself,
There come into existence inconceivable numbers of philosophical ideas and assertions.
Furthermore, since ordinary individuals do not understand it,
They do not recognize their own nature,
And so they continue to wander among the six destinies (of rebirth) within the three worlds and thus experience suffering.
Therefore, not understanding your own mind is a very grievous fault.
Even though the Sravakas and the Pratyeka buddhas wish to understand it in terms of the Anatman doctrine,
Still they do not understand it as it is in itself.
Also there exist others who, being attached to their own personal ideas and interpretations,
Become fettered by these attachments and so do not perceive the Clear Light.
The Sravakas and the Pratyekabuddhas are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to subject and object.
The Madhyamikas are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to the extremes of the Two Truths.
The practitioners of the Kriya Tantra and the Yoga Tantra are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to seva-sadhana practice.
The practitioners of the Mahayoga and the Anuyoga are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to Space and Awareness.
And with respect to the real meaning of nonduality, since they divide these (Space and Awareness) into two, they fall into deviation.
If these two do not become one without any duality, you will certainly not attain Buddhahood.
In terms of your own mind, as is the case with everyone, Samsara and Nirvana are inseparable.
Nonetheless, because you persist in accepting and enduring attachments and aversions, you will continue to wander in Samsara.
Therefore, your active dharmas and your inactive ones both should be abandoned.
However, since self-liberation through seeing nakedly by means of intrinsic awareness is here revealed to you,
You should understand that all dharmas can be perfected and completed in the great total Self-Liberation.
And therefore, whatever (practice you do) can be brought to perfection within the Great Perfection.
SAMAYA gya gya gya

6.As for this sparkling awareness which is called "mind,"
Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist.
(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.
And as for its being something desirable, it is cherished alike in the Eleven Vehicles.
With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers).
Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself."
Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."
The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self."
The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind."
Some call it the Prajnaparamita or "the Perfection of Wisdom."
Some call it the name Tathagatagarbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood."
Some call it by the name Mahamudra or "the Great Symbol."
Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere."
Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality."
Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything."
And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness."

7.Now, when you are introduced (to your own intrinsic awareness), the method for entering into it involves three considerations:
Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind.
Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything.
And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything, awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary.
And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;
only a naked manifest awareness is present.
(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created by anything whatsoever.
It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity and emptiness.
It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.
However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.
It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.
(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.
This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself.
This is the real introduction to the actual condition of things.

8.Within this (intrinsic awareness), the Trikaya are inseparable and fully present as one.
Since it is empty and not created anywhere whatsoever, it is The Dharmakaya.
Since its luminous clarity represents the inherent transparent radiance of emptiness, it is the Sambhogakaya.
Since its arising is nowhere obstructed or interrupted, it is the Nirmanakaya.
These three (the Trikaya) being complete and fully present as one, are its very essence.

9.When you are introduced in this way through this exceedingly powerful method for entering into the practice,
(You discover directly) that your own immediate self-awareness is just this (and nothing else),
And that it has an inherent self-clarity which is entirely unfabricated.
How can you then speak of not understanding the nature of the mind?
Moreover, since you are meditating without finding anything there to meditate upon,
How can you say that your meditation does not go well?
Since your own manifest intrinsic awareness is just this,
How can you say that you cannot find your own mind?
The mind is just that which is thinking:
And yet, although you have searched (for the thinker), how can you say that you do not find him?
With respect to this, nowhere does there exist the one who is the cause of (mental) activity.
And yet, since activity exists, how can you say that such activity does not arise?
Since merely allowing (thoughts) to settle into their own condition, without trying to modify them in any way, is sufficient,
How can you say that you are not able to remain in a calm state?
Since allowing (thoughts) to be just as they are, with out trying to do anything about them, is sufficient,
How can you say that you are not able to do anything with regard to them?
Since clarity, awareness, and emptiness are inseparable and are spontaneously self-perfected,
How can you say that nothing is accomplished by your practice?
Since (intrinsic awareness) is self-originated and spontaneously self-perfected without any antecedent causes or conditions,
How can you say that you are not able to accomplish anything by your efforts?
Since the arising of discursive thoughts and their being liberated occur simultaneously,
How can you say that you are unable to apply an antidote?
Since your own immediate awareness is just this,
How can you say that you do not know anything with regard to it?

10.It is certain that the nature of the mind is empty and without any foundation whatsoever.
Your own mind is insubstantial like the empty sky.
You should look at your own mind to see whether it is like that or not.
Being without any view that decisively decides that it is empty,
It is certain that self-originated primal awareness has been clear (and luminous) from the very beginning,
Like the heart of the sun, which is itself self-originated.
You should look at your own mind to see whether it is like that or not.
It is certain that this primal awareness or gnosis, which is one's intrinsic awareness, is unceasing,
Like the main channel of a river that flows unceasingly.
You should look at your own mind to see whether it is like that or not.
It is certain that the diversity of movements (arising in the mind) are not apprehendable by memories,
They are like insubstantial breezes that move through the atmosphere.
You should look at your own mind to see whether it is like that or not.
It is certain that whatever appearances occur, all of them are self-manifested,
Like the images in a mirror being self-manifestations that simply appear.
You should look at your own mind to see whether it is like that or not.
It is certain that all of the diverse characteristics of things are liberated into their own condition,
Like clouds in the atmosphere that are self-originated and self-liberated.
You should look at your own mind to see whether it is like that or not.

11.There exist no phenomena other than what arises from the mind.
Other than the meditation that occurs, where is the one who is meditating?
There exist no phenomena other than what arises from the mind.
Other than the behavior that occurs, where is the one who is behaving?
There exist no phenomena other than what arises from the mind.
Other than the samaya vow that occurs, where is the one who is guarding it?
There exist no phenomena other than what arises from the mind.
Other than the fruition that occurs, where is the one who is realizing (the fruit)?
You should look at your own mind, observing it again and again.
























12.When you look upward into the space of the sky outside yourself,
If there are no thoughts occurring that are emanations being projected,
And when you look inward at your own mind inside yourself,
If there exists no projectionist who projects thoughts by thinking them,
Then your own subtle mind will become lucidly clear without anything being projected.
Since the Clear Light of your own intrinsic awareness is empty, it is the Dharmakaya;
And this is like the sun rising in a cloudless illuminated sky.
Even though (this light cannot be said) to possess a particular shape or form, nevertheless, it can be fully known.
The meaning of this, whether or not it is understood, is especially significant.

13.This self-originated Clear Light, which from the very beginning was in no way produced (by something antecedent to it),
Is the child of awareness, and yet it is itself without any parents--amazing!
This self-originated primordial awareness has not been created by anything--amazing!
It does not experience birth nor does there exist a cause for its death--amazing!
Although it is evidently visible, yet there is no one there who sees it--amazing!
Although it has wandered throughout Samsara, it has come to no harm--amazing!
Even though it has seen Buddhahood itself, it has not come to any benefit from this--amazing!
Even though it exists in everyone everywhere, yet it has gone unrecognized--amazing!
Nonetheless you hope to attain some other fruit than this elsewhere--amazing!
Even though it exists within yourself (and nowhere else), yet you seek for it elsewhere--amazing!

14.How wonderful!
This immediate intrinsic awareness is insubstantial and lucidly clear:
Just this is the highest pinnacle of all views.
It is all-encompassing, free of everything, and without any conceptions whatsoever:
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all meditations.
It is unfabricated and inexpressible in worldly terms:
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all courses of conduct.
Without being sought after, it is spontaneously self-perfected from the very beginning:
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all fruits.

15.Here is the teaching of the four great vehicles that are without error:
(First) there is the great vehicle of the unmistaken view.
Since this immediate awareness is lucidly clear,
And this lucid clarity is without error or mistake, it is called "a vehicle."
(Second) there is the great vehicle of the unmistaken meditation.
Since this immediate awareness is that which possesses clarity,
And this lucid clarity is without error or mistake, it is called "a vehicle."
(Third) there is the great vehicle of the unmistaken conduct.
Since this immediate primal awareness is that which possesses clarity,
And this lucid clarity is without error or mistake, it is called "a vehicle".
(Fourth) there is the great vehicle of the unmistaken fruit.
Since this immediate awareness is lucidly clear,
And this lucid clarity is without error or mistake, it is called "a vehicle."

16.Here is the teaching on the four great unchanging (essential points called) "nails."
(First) there is the great nail of the unchanging view:
This immediate present awareness is lucidly clear,
Because it is stable in the three times, it is called "a nail."
(Second) there is the great nail of the unchanging meditation:
This immediate present awareness is lucidly clear,
Because it is stable in the three times, it is called "a nail."
(Third) there is the great nail of the unchanging conduct:
This immediate present awareness is lucidly clear,
Because it is stable in the three times, it is called "a nail."
(Fourth) there is the great nail of the unchanging fruit:
This immediate present awareness is lucidly clear,
Because it is stable in the three times, it is called "a nail."

17.Then, as for the secret instruction which teaches that the three times are one:
You should relinquish all notions of the past and abandon all precedents.
You should cut off all plans and expectations with respect to the future.
And in the present, you should not grasp (at thoughts that arise) but allow (the mind) to remain in a state like the sky.
Since there is nothing upon which to meditate (while in the primordial state), there is no need to meditate.
And since there does not exist any distraction here, you continue in this state of stable mindfulness without distraction.
In this state which is without meditation and without any distraction, you observe everything with a naked (awareness).
Your own awareness is inherently knowing, inherently clear, and luminously brilliant.
When it arises, it is called the Bodhichitta, "the enlightened mind".
Being without any activity of meditation, it transcends all objects of knowledge.
Being without any distraction, it is the luminous clarity of the Essence itself.
Appearances, being empty in themselves, become self-liberated; clarity and emptiness (being inseparable) are the Dharmakaya.
Since it becomes evident that there is nothing to be realized by means of the path to Buddhahood,
At this time you will actually behold Vajrasattva.

18.Then, as for the instruction for exhausting the six extremes and overthrowing them:
Even though there exist a great many different views that do not agree among themselves,
This "mind" which is your own intrinsic awareness is in fact self-originated primal awareness.
And with regard to this, the observer and the process of observing are not two (different things).
When you look and observe, seeking the one who is looking and observing,
Since you search for this observer and do not find him,
At that time your view is exhausted and overthrown.
Thus, even though it is the end of your view, this is the beginning with respect to yourself.
The view and the one who is viewing are not found to exist anywhere.
Without its falling excessively into emptiness and non-existence even at the beginning,
At this very moment your own present awareness becomes lucidly clear.
Just this is the view (or the way of seeing) of the Great Perfection.
(Therefore) understanding and not understanding are not two (different things).

19.Although there exist a great many different meditations that do not agree among themselves,
Your own ordinary present awareness is directly penetrating.
The process of meditation and the one who meditates are not two (different things).
When you look for the meditator who is meditating or not meditating,
Since you have searched for this meditator and have not found him anywhere,
At that time your meditation is exhausted and overthrown.
Thus, even though it is the end of your meditation, this is the beginning with respect to yourself.
The meditation and the meditator are not found to exist anywhere.
Without its falling under the power of delusion, drowsiness, or agitation,
Your immediate unfabricated awareness becomes lucidly clear;
And this unmodified state of even contemplation is concentration.
(Therefore) remaining in a calm state or not remaining in it are not two (different things).

20.Although there exist a great many different kinds of behavior which do not agree among themselves,
Your own self-originated primal awareness is the Unique Sphere.
Behavior and the one who behaves are not two (different things).
When you look for the one it is who behaves with action or without action,
Since you have searched for the one who acts and have not found him anywhere,
At that time your behavior is exhausted and overthrown.
Thus, even though it is the end of your conduct and behavior, this is the beginning with respect to yourself.
From the very beginning neither behavior nor the one who behaves have existed (as separate realities).
Without its falling under the power of errors and inherited predispositions,
Your immediate awareness is an unfabricated inherent clarity.
Without accepting or rejecting anything, just letting things be as they are without trying to modify them,
Such conduct or behavior alone is pure.
(Therefore) pure and impure action are not two (different things).

21.Although there exist great many different fruits that do not agree among themselves,
The nature of the mind that is inherent awareness is (none other than) the spontaneously perfected Trikaya.
What is realized and the one who realizes it are not two (different things).
When you look for the fruit and for the one who has realized it,
Since you have searched for the realizer (of the fruit) and have not found him anywhere,
At that time your fruit is exhausted and overthrown.
Thus, even though it is an end to your fruition, still this is the beginning with respect to yourself.
Both the fruition and the one who has attained the realization are found to not exist anywhere.
Without its falling under the power of attachments or aversions or of hopes and fears,
Your immediate present awareness becomes spontaneously perfected inherent clarity.
Understand that within yourself the Trikaya is fully manifest.
(Therefore) this itself is the fruition of primordial Buddhahood.

22.This intrinsic awareness is free of the eight extremes, such as eternalism and nihilism, and the rest.
Thus we speak of the Middle Way where one does not fall into any of the extremes,
And we speak of intrinsic awareness as uninterrupted mindful presence.
Since emptiness possesses a heart that is intrinsic awareness,
Therefore it is called by the name of Tathagatagarbha, that is, "the embryo or heart of Buddhahood."
If you understand the meaning of this, then that will transcend and surpass everything else.
Therefore, it is called by the name of Prajnaparamita, that is, "the Perfection of Wisdom."
Because it cannot be conceived of by the intellect and is free of all (conceptual) limitations from the very beginning,
Therefore it is called by the name of Mahamudra, that is, "the Great Symbol."
Because of that, in accordance with whether it is specifically understood or not understood,
Since it is the basis of everything, of all the bliss of Nirvana and of all the sorrow of Samsara,
Therefore it is called by the name of Alaya, that is, "the foundation of everything."
Because, when it remains in its own space, it is quite ordinary and in no way exceptional,
This awareness that is present and lucidly clear
Is called by the name of "ordinary awareness."
However many names may be applied to it, even though they are well conceived and fancy sounding,
With regard to its real meaning, it is just this immediate present awareness (and nothing else).

23.To desire something other than this
Is just like having an elephant (at home), but searching for its tracks elsewhere.
Even though you may try to measure the universe with a tape measure, it will not be possible to encompass all of it.
(Similarly) if you do not understand that everything derives from the mind, it will not be possible for you to attain Buddhahood.
By not recognizing this (intrinsic awareness for what it is), you will then search for your mind somewhere outside of yourself.
If you seek for yourself elsewhere (outside of yourself), how can you ever find yourself?
For example, this is just like an idiot who, going into a crowd of many people,
And having let himself become confused because of the spectacle,
Does not recognize himself; and, even though he searches for himself everywhere,
He continually makes the error of mistaking others for himself.
(Similarly) since you do not see the natural condition of the real disposition of things,
You do not know that appearances come from mind, and so you are thrust once again into Samsara.
By not seeing that your own mind is actually the Buddha, Nirvana becomes obscured.
With respect to Samsara and Nirvana, (the difference is simply due) to ignorance or to awareness respectively.
But at this single instant (of pure awareness), there is in fact no actual difference between them (in terms of their essence).
If you come to perceive them as existing somewhere other than in your own mind, this is surely an error.
(Therefore) error and non-error are actually of a single essence (which is the nature of the mind).
Since the mind-streams of sentient beings are not made into something that is divided into two,
The unmodified uncorrected nature of the mind is liberated by its being allowed simply to remain in its own (original) natural condition.
If you are not aware that the fundamental error or delusion comes from the mind,
You will not properly understand the real meaning of the Dharmata (the nature of reality);

24.You should look into what is self-arising and self-originated.
With respect to these appearances, in the beginning they must arise from somewhere,
In between they must remain somewhere, and at the end they must go somewhere.
Yet when you look (into this matter), it is, for example, like a crow gazing into a well.
When he flies away from the well, (his reflection) also departs from the well and does not return.
In the same way, appearances arise from the mind;
They arise from the mind and are liberated into the mind.
The nature of the mind which (has the capacity) to know everything and be aware of everything is empty and clear;
As is the case with the sky above, its emptiness and its clarity have been inseparable from the very beginning.
Self-originated primal awareness becomes manifest,
And becoming systematically established as luminous clarity, just this is the Dharmata, the nature of reality.
Even though the indication of its existence is all phenomenal existence (which manifests externally to you),
You are aware of it in your own mind, and this latter is the nature of the mind.
Since it is aware and clear, it is understood to be like the sky.
However, even though we employ the example of the sky to indicate the nature of the mind,
This is in fact only a metaphor or simile indicating things in a one-sided fashion.
The nature of the mind, as well as being empty, is also intrinsically aware; everywhere it is clear.
But the sky is without any awareness; it is empty as an inanimate corpse is empty.
Therefore, the real meaning of "mind" is not indicated by the sky.
So without distraction, simply allow (the mind) to remain in the state of being just as it is.

25.Moreover, as for this diversity of appearances, which represents relative truth,
Not even one of these appearances is actually created in reality, and so accordingly they disappear again.
All things, all phenomenal existence, everything within Samsara and Nirvana,
Are merely appearances (or phenomena) which are perceived by the individual's single nature of the mind.
On any particular occasion, when your own (internal) mind-stream undergoes changes,
Then there will arise appearances which you will perceive as external changes.
Therefore, everything that you see is a manifestation of mind.
And, moreover, all of the beings inhabiting the six realms of rebirth perceive everything with their own distinct karmic vision.

26.The Tirthikas who are outsiders see all this in terms of the dualism of eternalism as against nihilism.
Each of the nine successive vehicles sees things in terms of its own view.
Thus, things are perceived in various different ways and may be elucidated in various different ways.
Because you grasped at these various (appearances that arise), becoming attached to them, errors have come into existence.
Yet with respect to all of these appearances of which you are aware in your mind,
Even though these appearances that you perceive do arise, if you do not grasp at them, then that is Buddhahood.
Appearances are not erroneous in themselves, but because of your grasping at them, errors come into existence.
But if you know that these thoughts only grasp at things which are mind, then they will be liberated by themselves.
Everything that appears is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though the entire external inanimate universe appears to you, it is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though all of the sentient beings of the six realms appear to you they are but a manifestation of mind.
Even though the happiness of humans and the delights of the Devas in heaven appear to you, they are but manifestations of mind.
Even though the sorrows of the three evil destinies appear to you, they are but manifestations of mind.
Even though the five poisons representing ignorance and the passions appear to you, they are but manifestations of mind.
Even though intrinsic awareness which is self-originated primal awareness appears to you, it is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though good thoughts along the way to Nirvana appear to you, they are but manifestations of mind.
Even though obstacles due to demons and evil spirits appears to you, they are but manifestations of mind.
Even though the gods and other excellent attainments appear to you, they are but manifestations of mind.
Even though various kinds of purity appear to you, they are but manifestations of mind.
Even though (the experience) of remaining in a state of one-pointed concentration without any discursive thoughts appears to you, it is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though the colors that are the characteristics of things appear to you, they are but manifestations of mind.
Even though a state without characteristics and without conceptual elaborations appears to you, it is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though the nonduality of the one and the many appears to you, it is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though existence and non-existence which are not created anywhere appear to you, they are but manifestations of mind.
There exist no appearances whatsoever that can be understood as not coming from mind.

27.Because of the unobstructed nature of the mind, there is a continuous arising of appearances.
Like the waves and the waters of the ocean, which are not two (different things),
Whatever arises is liberated into the natural state of the mind.
However many different names are applied to it in this unceasing process of naming things,
With respect to its real meaning, the mind (of the individual) does not exist other than as one.
And, moreover, this singularity is without any foundation and devoid of any root.
But, even though it is one, you cannot look for it in any particular direction.
It cannot be seen as an entity located somewhere, because it is not created or made by anything.
Nor can it be seen as just being empty, because there exists the transparent radiance of its own luminous clarity and awareness.
Nor can it be seen as diversified, because emptiness and clarity are inseparable.
Immediate self-awareness is clear and present.
Even though activities exist, there is no awareness of an agent who is the actor.
Even though they are without any inherent nature, experiences are actually experienced.
If you practice in this way, then everything will be liberated.
With respect to your own sense faculties, everything will be understood immediately without any intervening operations of the intellect.
Just as is the case with the sesame seed being the cause of the oil and the milk being the cause of butter,
But where the oil is not obtained without pressing and the butter is not obtained without churning,
So all sentient beings, even though they possess the actual essence of Buddhahood,
Will not realize Buddhahood without engaging in practice.
If he practices, then even a cowherd can realize liberation.
Even though he does not know the explanation, he can systematically establish himself in the experience of it.
(For example) when one has had the experience of actually tasting sugar in one's own mouth,
One does not need to have that taste explained by someone else.
Not understanding this (intrinsic awareness), even Panditas can fall into error.
Even though they are exceedingly learned and knowledgeable in explaining the nine vehicles,
It will only be like spreading rumors of places which they have not seen personally.
And with respect to Buddhahood, they will not even approach it for a moment.
If you understand (intrinsic awareness), all of your merits and sins will be liberated into their own condition.
But if you do not understand it, any virtuous or vicious deeds that you commit
Will accumulate as karma leading to transmigration in heavenly rebirth or to rebirth in the evil destinies respectively.
But if you understand this empty primal awareness which is your own mind,
The consequences of merit and of sin will never come to be realized,
Just as a spring cannot originate in the empty sky.
In the state of emptiness itself, the object of merit or of sin is not even created.
Therefore, your own manifest self-awareness comes to see everything nakedly.
This self-liberation through seeing with naked awareness is of such great profundity,
And, this being so, you should become intimately acquainted with self-awareness.
Profoundly sealed!

28.How wonderful!
As for this "Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness" which is a direct introduction to one's own intrinsic awareness,
It is for the benefit of those sentient beings belonging to the later generations of those future degenerate times
That all of my Tantras, Agamas, and Upadesas,
Though necessarily brief and concise, have been composed.
And even though I have disseminated them at the present time, yet they shall be concealed as precious treasures,
So that those whose good karma ripens in the future shall come to encounter them.
SAMAYA gya gya gya
This treatise which is an introduction to one's actual intrinsic awareness or state of immediate presence
Is entitled "Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness."
It was composed by Padmasambhava, the Master from Uddiyana.
Until Samsara is emptied of living beings, may this Great Work of liberating them not be abandoned!

(On the full moon day of the eight month of the Wood-Ox year, this Terma text entitled the Rig-pa ngo-sprod gcer mthong
rang-grol, belonging to the Zab-chos zhi-khro dgongs-pa rang-grol cycle of Rigdzin Karma Lingpa, was translated by
Vajranatha in the hope that it will enlighten and benefit all beings. New York, October 1985)
Sarva Mangalam
________________________________________
translation of the text by John Myrdhin Reynolds





--------------------------------------
Technorati: Buddhism Buddha Buddhist Dharma Compassion Wisdom Religion Meditation Zen Philosophy Spirituality Padmasambhava Peace Insight

Read more!

The Four Applications Of Mindfulness

Extracted from 'The Buddha Speaks of Amitabha Sutra with commentaries of the Venerable Master Hsuan Hua' page 58 & 63

(Page 58)
Then Ananda said, “We have always lived with you, Buddha, but when you enter Nirvana, where are we going to live?”

Shakyamuni Buddha said, “When I go to Nirvana, all Bhikshus, Bhikshunis, Upasakas, and Upasikas should dwell in the Four Applications of Mindfulness: Mindfulness with regard to the body, feelings, thoughts, and dharmas.

1) Contemplate the body as impure. If you know that the body is impure, you won’t love it, and without love there will be no attachment. Being without attachment is freedom. So first of all,regard the body as impure.
2) Contemplate feelings as suffering. Feelings are all a kind of suffering, whether they are pleasant or unpleasant, for pleasant feelings are the cause of unpleasant feelings.
3) Contemplate thought as impermanent. Thoughts shift and flow and are not permanent.
4) Contemplate dharmas as devoid of self.”

(Page 63)
The Four Applications Of Mindfulness

1) Contemplation of the body as impure. Everyone sees his body as extremely precious. Because you think it is real, you are selfish and profit-seeking. Without a body, there would be no selfishness.

We think our bodies are real and actual. Being selfish, we create offenses and commit evil deeds. We cannot let go of the affairs of the world and calculate on behalf of our bodies all day long, looking for good food, beautiful clothes, and a nice place to live— a little happiness for the body. On the day we die, we are still unclear. “My body is dying,” we moan. “How can it do this to me?” At that time we know that our bodies are unreal, but it’s too late, too late for our regrets.

Ultimately, is the body real? Stupid people think so, but wise people see it merely as a combination of the four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. It is not ultimate.

“Then,” you ask, “what is ultimate?”

Our own self-nature is
bright and all-illumining;
Our own-self-nature is
perfect and unimpeded.
It is nowhere and nowhere is it not;
to the end of empty space,
it exhausts the Dharma Realm.

Our bodies are temporary dwellings where our self-nature comes to live for a time. But the person dwelling in the hotel is not the hotel, and in the same way, his body is not him. The traveler who thinks that he is the hotel is mistaken. If you know that the body is just like a hotel, you should seek that which dwells within it, for once you have found it, you will recognize your true self.

From the time of birth, the body is impure—a combination of its father’s semen and its mother’s blood. The child grows up with greed, hate, stupidity, pride, and doubt. He commits offenses, creating the karma of killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and taking intoxicants and drugs. Offense-karma is created because of the body. But is the body such a precious thing after all? No.

A precious jewel is pure and undefiled, without stain or the slightest trace of filth. Our bodies, on the other hand, have nine apertures which constantly secrete impure substances: tears from the eyes, wax from the ears, mucus from the nose…

There are religions whose members eat mucus. They say that they are “smelting the cinnabar.” They also eat tears and ear wax thinking that these filthy substances are precious jewels. Isn’t that pitiful?

Two ears, two eyes, and two nostrils make six holes. The mouth is full of phlegm and saliva. That’s seven holes. Add the anus and urinary tract and you have nine. Would you call this pure? Everyone knows that excrement and urine are unclean and, if you don’t believe it, just try seasoning some fine food with a tiny pinch of excrement. No one will eat it. People will want to vomit instead because it is unclean. Would you call this body, dribbling filth from nine holes, a jewel? If it’s a jewel, why do such vile things flow from it?

If you don’t bathe for a week, you itch and squirm and a thick crust forms on your body. Where did it come from? Soon you stink with an odor even a dog finds repulsive. What is the advantage of having a body? Contemplate the body as impure. If you see how filthy it is, do you still love it? Are you still attached? What’s the use of loving such a dirty thing?

“Then can I stab myself? Can I kill myself?” you ask.

No. That’s not necessary. You must borrow this false body and use it to cultivate the Truth. The self-nature dwells within the body. You entered the body of five skandhas and the yin and yang merged in a combination of purity and filth which is your body. If you cultivate, you can go up, and attain purity. If you do not cultivate you will go down, create offense karma, unite with the filth, and turn into a ghost.

Go up. Become a Buddha. Whether or not you cultivate is up to you, however. Nobody can force you to cultivate.

The Venerable Ananda thought that because he was the Buddha’s cousin, he didn’t need to cultivate. He thought that the Buddha would just give him samadhi. But the Buddha couldn’t do that, and so it was not until after the Buddha’s Nirvana, when Ananda was about to edit the Sutras, that he finally certified to the fourth Stage of Arhatship and realized that he could not neglect cultivation.

Be mindful that the body is impure, don’t be so fond of it, and don’t take it as a treasure.

You say, “I can’t stand criticism. I can’t stand it.”

Who are you?

“If they hit me, I can’t bear it. It hurts!”

Really? If you put your attachments down and see through them, there is neither pain nor not pain. Who is in pain? What, exactly, hurts? If someone hits you, pretend that you bumped into a wall. If someone scolds you, pretend that they are singing a song or speaking Japanese. How can they scold you if you don’t understand them?

“Are they speaking Spanish or Portugese? French? German? I’ve never studied languages so I don’t understand…” They can scold you, but it’s nothing. In general, once you see through, break, and put down the attachment to your body, you win your independence.

Contemplate your body as impure. Don’t regard it with so much importance. It’s not important.

Contemplate feelings, thoughts, and dharmas as impure also.

2) Contemplate feelings as suffering. Feelings may be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral; from the point of view of the three sufferings, unpleasant feelings are the suffering within suffering, pleasant feelings are caught up in the suffering of decay, and neutral feelings are the suffering of process. Wake up! Everything you enjoy is a form of suffering. If you know that pleasure is suffering, you will not be attached to it. I often say:

Enduring suffering puts an end to suffering;
Enjoying blessings destroys blessings.

If you endure your suffering, it will pass. If you enjoy your blessings, they, too, will pass. Contemplate feelings as suffering.

The body, thought, and dharmas are also suffering. Although there are Four Applications of Mindfulness, you can divide them up; each of the four characteristic qualities, impurity, suffering, impermanence, and the absence of self, can be applied to the body, to feelings, to thoughts, and to dharmas, making sixteen applications in all.

3) Contemplate thoughts as impermanent. The Vajra Sutra says, “Past thought cannot be obtained, present thought cannot be obtained, and future thought cannot be obtained.” All your thoughts are unobtainable. They flow without stopping and so they are impermanent. The body, feelings and dharmas are also impermanent.

4) Contemplate dharmas as without self. Basically, since there are no dharmas, from whence cometh the self? The self is a combination of four elements and the five skandhas—a creation of form dharmas. Outside of the four elements and the five skandhas there is no self. So contemplate dharmas as being without a self.

The Four Applications of Mindfulness are very wonderful. If you investigate them thoroughly, understand and dwell on them, you will be unattached and will attain true freedom. If you’re attached, you can’t be free. Why? Because you’re attached! So dwell in the Four Applications of Mindfulness. Dwell and yet do not dwell.


~End of Post~





--------------------------------------
Technorati: Buddhism Buddha Buddhist Dharma Compassion Wisdom Religion Meditation Zen Philosophy Spirituality Inspiration Peace Insight

Read more!

Hell Scene Painting 地狱变相图导览

Hell Scene Painting [English Version]


地狱变相图导览（新版国语）


~End of Post~





--------------------------------------
Technorati: Buddhism Buddha Buddhist Dharma Compassion Wisdom Religion Meditation Zen Philosophy Spirituality Inspiration Peace Insight

Read more!

Generating Power

Extracted from book ~ Meditations 2,
Dhamma Talks by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
July, 2003

Concentration practice involves work. We often think of it as a place for the mind to rest, and it is, but it's even more a place for the mind to recharge its batteries. That requires energy, requires effort, requires work. In Thailand the idiom for meditation is "to make an effort." And in meditating there very definitely are things we have to do. It's not just a letting go of the tension, a letting go of the stresses of daily life. There's also work to be done to keep mindfulness continuous, to keep your alertness continuous and all-around, to keep both mindfulness and alertness spinning around inside here like a generator. A generator sits in one place but it has to spin around to create electric power. If the generator simply sits still, it can't create anything. There has to be some activity for the electrons to run in a current.

The same is true with concentration. The two causes for gaining a sense of ease and wellbeing are directed thought and evaluation. Directed thought grows out of mindfulness; evaluation, out of alertness. You have to keep directing your thoughts to the breath, keep evaluating it, noticing when it's comfortable, noticing when it's not. And then there's singleness of preoccupation: You try to keep the mind at one with its object, make it become one with its object. All of this takes effort, and sometimes people will sit in meditation, put a lot of effort into it, and at the end of the period say, "Well, the meditation didn't get any results. It was just constant effort." However, it's a normal principle in practicing concentration that it requires effort before it can start giving results. The effort is never wasted.

Over time you begin to get a sense of how much effort is too much, how much is too little. When you get a sense of "just right," the results you want start appearing. At that point, the payoff comes as you're doing the work. You don't have to wait until the end of the year before your paycheck arrives. You receive installments all along the way. So as you're doing the meditation work, keep this point in mind: It is work, but as you get more precise at it, more subtle at it, the results you're looking for will start to appear.

Ajaan Lee talks about concentration work being basically three activities — directed thought, evaluation, and singleness of preoccupation — with all three spinning around in one place. When you start being very precise in doing them, they start showing their results. In other words, you keep reminding yourself to stay with the breath. If you notice that the mind is wandering off, you immediately get it back on track. Try to sense when the mind is preparing to go even before it actually goes. That way you can nip the distractions in the bud.

And try to be as alert as possible to how the breathing feels. Try to make it feel refreshing. This way the work becomes something you can easily keep on doing, because you feel refreshed in doing your work. Sitting here, it feels good breathing in, feels good breathing out. Ordinarily large areas of the body are starved for breathing energy, so give them a chance to drink it in, to bathe in it. Think of the energy going to the different parts of the body — "Who wants this breath? Who wants the next one?" — until you've got the whole body nourished. If it feels good, do it again. Next time around try to be even more perceptive as to what's going on, what's needed where.

As for singleness of preoccupation, make sure the mind doesn't lose itself, doesn't start wandering off in other directions, getting distracted. And watch out for the hindrances, because they drain your energy. Even though you may be generating a lot of power here, if the hindrances get in the way everything gets drained away. Like the solar electric system here at Wat Metta: When we were first setting up the batteries, we were careless and put them on a couple of boards on the ground. Well, sure enough, a rain storm came. One of the wires shorted, and by the next day the batteries were totally dead. Even though the solar panels were pumping out energy, the batteries were so dead you couldn't revive them.

The same holds true in the meditation: If you keep coming back to the breath but then allow the mind to go wandering off in other directions, then all the power, all the recharging in your batteries, just gets drained away. So you've got to be careful not to go thinking about anything else while you're here with the breathing. When thoughts about other things do come passing through, you don't want to get involved in them. Just let them go, let them go. Part of the problem is that you get curious: "What's this thought about? What's that thought about? Maybe it's something important, maybe it's something entertaining." Watch out for those attitudes, because that's like opening the door for thieves to come into your house, or like scraping away the insulation on your wires before the rats do. So as soon as a thought that's not related to the breath comes into the mind, just let it go.

And there are certain ways of thinking about the breath or the meditation that actually get in the way of the meditation, too, so you've got to watch out for them as well. The big troublemakers are restlessness and anxiety. Restlessness is wanting to push for results before the mind is really ready to give them, trying to figure out things beforehand, before you've actually done the concentration work. You've got to do the work first and let the results develop on their own.

Ajaan Lee gives the example of getting gold out of a rock. You can't just go to the mountain and use a pick to extract the gold. You've got to take the rock and subject it to heat. The fire will take time, getting hot enough so that it can melt the gold, but when it reaches the melting point, the gold will all come out on its own. In other words, when your powers of concentration are strong enough, when they reach the point where they're ready, then the work of discernment gets a lot easier. Things separate out right before your very eyes without your having to do an awful lot of analysis. When the mind has been concentrated long enough and solidly enough, you just pose a question and things will appear very clearly, for you've created the environment in which they can appear clearly, in that the mind is solid and still.

As for anxiety, one of the standard definitions is concern about what other people think. "What's this person going to think? What's that person going to think? If what I know is right offends people, what am I going to do? Do I dare do it?" That kind of anxiety really gets in the way of your goodness. If you let yourself get led astray by those thoughts in your daily life, it's very hard not to get led astray while you're meditating. One of the things I really appreciated about Ajaan Fuang was that he really didn't care what other people thought. If he knew that what he was doing was right, then even if it was unpopular he went ahead with it, because he realized that there's no way you can control other peoples' attitudes toward you. If they want to think ill of you, well, that's their right. And, ultimately, where does popularity get you? Not very far. It certainly doesn't get you very far on the path.

I also noticed that Ajaan Fuang didn't trust people who were concerned about being popular. There was an interesting exchange once when he was going to appoint one of the merchants in town to be the monastery treasurer. The first question he asked the man was, "In your future life would you rather be popular or wealthy?" And the man said, "Wealthy. If you're wealthy you can buy popularity." So Ajaan Fuang appointed him treasurer. He liked the idea that the man was not all that concerned about being popular. If the treasurer was concerned about being popular you couldn't trust him. He might be afraid to do the right thing when push came to shove, and certain people wanted to get their hands on the monastery funds.

So it's important to keep this attitude in mind when you know that something is right: Don't worry about whether it's popular, don't let yourself be swayed by public opinion. Of course this means that you have to be very careful about what you see as right. In other words, you let yourself be swayed by advice from wise people, from people you respect. But as for people in general whose opinions don't have any real principles, you don't have to worry about what they think. No matter what they can do to you, they can't touch the most important part of you, which is your own inner integrity.

This is how the practice requires courage. Conviction in the principle of karma requires that you make a commitment not to hedge your bets. You're going to depend totally on the skillfulness of your own intentions to whatever extent you can develop that skillfulness. That's the principle to which you have to devote yourself.

As for other principles or lack of principles, let them go. Sometimes this feels a little scary. You're so used to hedging your bets so that at least you're popular, at least you've got connections, so that if the principle of karma doesn't work out you've got something else to fall back on. But to be really committed to the principle of karma, to get the best results from it, you have to be committed.

And to be really committed requires repeated acts of commitment. This is why in the Forest tradition so much emphasis is placed on the virtue of courage. Not foolhardiness, but courage. It takes a certain amount of courage to keep the mind centered and still, because otherwise we're always trying to plan ahead, second guess things, anticipate things. But for the mind to have really strong powers of concentration you basically have to tell yourself, "I don't care. I'm going to focus on doing what needs to be done right now and I'm not going to try to provide for alternative things to fall back on." In other words, when the time comes to be focused and concentrated, that's all you do. Give yourself to it totally. Have a sense of conviction, a sense of confidence in the practice, and don't try to second guess things. When the concentration has developed to a proper level, it'll start showing its results on its own.

In terms of that simile I often use about the unripe mango: You don't keep yellow paint on hand just in case, to make the mango nice and yellow if watering the tree doesn't work out. If you're convinced that your mango is going to become yellow by pouring water and fertilizer on the roots of the tree, that's all you focus on. You don't worry about when it's going to get yellow. You realize that if you stick with the watering long enough, the mango will have to ripen. That's all you have to do.

When you have this kind of single-mindedness, then concentration gets more and more powerful. It really recharges you. It's not just a relaxation technique. It contains an element of commitment, an element of applied energy. At the same time, you're making sure that nothing is draining your battery away. That way you gain more and more strength from the concentration, so that when the time comes to leave the concentration — even though it involved some work — you feel refreshed, energized, charged. That's not simply because you've been able to let go of patterns of tension in the body. The different channels of breath energy in the body have also been able to reinforce one another. At the same time, the good qualities of the mind get reinforced and strengthened. They've been allowed to nourish one another, too.

This is how the work of concentration starts showing its results, with a sense of wellbeing, a sense of inner strength, a sense of being energized. After all, concentration is one of the five strengths. And if our discernment is going to have the strength it needs to penetrate all the veils of delusion we've put up in the mind, it's going to require good strong concentration, good committed concentration to do the work that leads to release.




--------------------------------------
Technorati: Buddhism Buddha Buddhist Dharma Compassion Wisdom Religion Meditation Zen Philosophy Spirituality Inspiration Peace Insight

Read more!

How to Make Light Offerings to Accumulate the Most Extensive Merit

by Lama Zopa Rinpoche

Light Offerings

The Benefits of Making Light Offerings
It is said in the Ten Wheel Sutra of the Essence of Earth (Kshitigarbha): "All comfort, happiness and peace in this world are received by making offerings to the Rare Sublime Ones (the Triple Gem), therefore those who like to have comfort, happiness and peace always attempt to make offerings to the Rare Sublime Ones."

In general, all the collections of goodness of samsara and nirvana are the result of having made offerings to the Triple Gem. In particular, one receives different benefits by doing service with each of the various individual offerings. Buddha, the Fourth Guide, whose holy mind is enriched with the ten powers, announced in the "Tune of Brahma" Sutra Clarifying Karma that there are ten benefits of making light offerings:

1. One becomes like the light in the world.
2. One achieves the clairvoyance of the pure flesh eye [as a human].
3. One achieves the devas' eye.
4. One receives the wisdom of knowing what is virtue and what is non-virtue.
5. One is able to eliminate the darkness of ignorance, the concept of inherent existence.
6. One receives the illumination of wisdom, even in samsara one never experiences darkness.
7. One receives great enjoyment wealth.
8. One is reborn in the deva or human realms.
9. One quickly becomes liberated.
10. One quickly attains enlightenment.

Those devas or humans who accumulate the merit of making one light offering, or just a handful of flowers, will see the fully enlightened Buddha Maitreya. It is said in the Sutra of Arya Maitreya: "Those who offer 1,000 lights, or 1,000 blue utpali flowers, or who make the pinnacle of a stupa, who make the holy form, will be reborn when Maitreya Buddha shows the deed of gaining enlightenment and receive his first Dharma Teaching." It is also said that even those who offer one flower, or who rejoice at the merit of others who offer, will achieve this Buddhahood. This means that even if one doesn't get enlightened during Shakyamuni's teaching, then during Maitreya Buddha's teaching one's mind will get ripened and liberated.

Offering light, in particular, is a special door of dependent arising to quickly complete the accumulation of merit and receive blessings. It is said in the Second Chapter of the Root Tantra of Chakrasamvara (who is the manifestation of Shakyamuni Buddha, "If you wish for sublime realization, offer hundreds of lights".

If one wishes to know in detail the results of making offerings to the holy objects or doing service to the Buddha and the holy objects, one should study the Sutra of the Compassionate-Eye Looking One (Avalokiteshvara), or the Sutra of Sang Gyal (i.e., the Sutra in which Buddha gave instruction to King Sang Gyal), or Konchog Thala. It says in the text, Immortal Drum Sound Mantra: "If one devotes to the Inconceivable One, then the result is also inconceivable". Similarly, it is said in the Sutra of the Compassionate-Eye Looking One: "Since the dharmas (i.e. qualities) of the Buddha Gone As It Is (Skt.Tathagatha) are limitless, making offering to the One Gone As It Is has limitless, infinite, inconceivable, incomparable, unimaginable and numberless benefits."

It says in the Sutra, The Small Quotation (Tib. lung ten tsek): "It is possible for the moon and stars to fall down to the earth, for the mountains and forests to rise up into the sky, and for the water in the great oceans to completely dry up, but it is not possible for the Great Sage (i.e. Buddha) to tell a lie." Keep this in your mind. Generate strong devotion and faith in the root of all happiness and goodness: actions and their results and the blessings of the Three Precious Rare Sublime Ones. Having this body and possessions, which are as though borrowed for a year, a month, or a few days, one should attend day and night, all the time, to the practice of taking the essence of this human life, which is of short duration like a lightning flash, by planting seeds as much as possible in the special Merit Field.

The actual practice: How to Make Light Offerings

Setting a good motivation before lighting the candles generate bodhicitta. Think:

"The purpose of my life is not only to obtain happiness and solve problems for myself, but to free each being from problems and lead them to happiness, especially to the state of full enlightenment. Therefore, I must achieve complete enlightenment. To do this, I must complete the two accumulations, the merit of fortune (method) and the merit of wisdom. Therefore, I am going to make charity with the light offerings and make offering to the Merit Field."

Also remember to motivate for the success of particular projects, for people who have passed away or who are sick, or for other particular purposes.












Reciting OM AH HUNG

As soon as you light the candles, or turn on the electricity, bless them by reciting om ah hung three times. If you don't immediately bless them, the spirit possession called Tsu Peu Chikpa enters into the offering and then , if you offer that light, it becomes an obstacle, it causes mental damage. In this case, it causes you to fall asleep without control when doing listening, reflection and meditation practices on the holy dharma. One should understand that it is the same thing with all the rest of the offerings, if one doesn't bless them there are different spirit possessions that enter into them and then the offering damages the mind and causes obstacles.

Making Charity to the Beings of the Six Realms

Think that these offerings have been received due to the kindness of sentient beings. Think, "These are not mine."

Make charity to all the hell beings, preta beings, animals, humans, suras and asuras. We make charity of the offerings in order to oppose the thought of the light offerings belonging to us. Think that we and all other beings are together going to make offerings to the Buddha. Generate happiness at having accumulated infinite merit by thinking in this way.

Blessing the Offerings

Now bless the offering substances by reciting the mantra that allows each Buddha to receive inconceivable offerings, and by expressing the Power of the Truth:
Offering Prayer

I actually perform and mentally transform the offering substances of human beings and devas. May the whole sky be pervaded by Samanthabhadra clouds of offerings.

Mantra to Increase the Offerings

om namo bhagavate - bendze sarwaparma dana tathagataya -
arhate samyaksam buddhaya - tayata - om mendze bendze maha
bendze maha tadza bendze - maha bidya bendze maha bodhicitta bendze -
maha bodhi mendo pasam kramana bendze -
sarwa karma awarana bisho dana bendze soha (3X)

Power of the Truth

By the power of the truth of the Three Rare Sublime Ones, the blessings of all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, the great richness of having completed the two merits, and the inconceivable pure sphere of existence (the emptiness of existence), may it become only like that.

Making the Offerings

We make offering to all the holy objects, by visualizing that they are manifestations of our own root guru who is one with all other virtuous friends. Since the virtuous friend is the most powerful object in the Merit Field, offering in this way one accumulates the most extensive merit. It is said by the Savior Nagarjuna in the text of the Five Stages:

"Abandon making other offerings, purely attempt offering to the guru. By pleasing the guru, one will achieve the sublime wisdom omniscient mind." It is said by Guru Vajradhara in the Root Tantra text Buddhaya: "One pore of the spiritual master is more sublime than all the merit accumulated by offering to all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the ten directions."

First, we offer to all the holy objects in our own room or temple by visualizing that these are manifestations of our own root guru who is one with all other virtuous friends.

Then, we make offering to all the holy objects in this country, thinking of them as manifestations of one's own virtuous friends. Then, we make offering to all the holy objects in India: principally Bodh Gaya Stupa, where the Buddha showed the holy deed of enlightenment, then all the rest of the holy objects (by thinking of them as one's own virtuous friend).

We make offering to all the holy objects in Tibet: in particular, the holy statue that Buddha himself blessed, then all the rest of the holy objects, by thinking of them as one's own virtuous friend.

Then, we offer to all the holy objects in Nepal: principally the most holy precious object, the great holy stupa at Boudhnath, then all the rest of the holy objects by thinking of them as the virtuous friend. Then, we offer to all the holy objects in all the remaining Buddhist countries by thinking of them as one's own virtuous friend.

We offer to all the Buddhas, Dharma and Sangha of the ten directions by thinking of them as one's own virtuous friend.

We offer to all the holy objects of the ten directions: statues, stupas, scriptures, etc. by thinking of them as one's own virtuous friend. There is also a special way of making light offerings according to highest secret mantra. In this way, great bliss is generated in all the holy minds.

The Actual Light Offering Prayer

Then recite the actual prayer of the light offerings five, 10 or 1,000 times, etc., depending on how many times one wishes to make the light offerings:

Light Offering Prayer

These actually performed and mentally performed light offerings, the manifestations of one's own innate awareness, Dharmakaya, these clouds of offerings equalling the infinite sky, I am offering to all the gurus and Three Sublime Ones, and to the statues, stupas and scriptures, which are the guru. We have accumulated infinite merit by having generated bodhicitta, by having made charity to the sentient beings, and by making the actual light offerings to the gurus, Triple Gem and holy objects of the ten directions.

Due to this merit, may whoever I promised to pray for and whoever prays to me, whose name I have received to pray for--principally servants, benefactors and disciples, then all the remainder migrator beings living and dead--may the rays of the light of the five wisdoms completely purify all their degenerate vows of samaya right now.

May all the sufferings of the evil gone realms be ceased right now.
May all the three realms of samsara be empty right now.
May all the impure minds and their obscurations be purified.
May all impure appearances be purified.
May the five holy bodies and wisdom spontaneously arise.

(Repeat as many times as you wish to offer the lights)

Dedication Prayers

Due to these infinite merits, may whatever sufferings sentient beings have ripen on me now. May whatever happiness and virtue I have accumulated (including all the realizations of the path and the highest goal enlightenment) be received by each hell being, preta being, animal, human being, sura and asura right now.

By this dedication one has accumulated infinite merit, so rejoice:

May the precious sublime thought of enlightenment, which is the source of all success and happiness for oneself and for all sentient beings, be generated without delaying for even a second. May whatever has been generated increase more and more without degeneration.

Due to all the three times' merits accumulated by me, by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and by sentient beings, which are empty from their own side, may the I, which is empty from its own side, achieve enlightenment, which is empty from its own side, and lead sentient beings, who are empty from their own side, to that Enlightenment by myself alone.

Whatever white virtues we have thus created we dedicate as causes Enabling us to uphold the holy Dharma of scriptures and insights and to fulfil without exception the prayers and deeds of all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the three times.

By the force of this merit in all our lives
May we never be parted from Mahayana's four spheres
And may we reach the end of our journey along the paths
Of renunciation, Bodhicitta, the pure view and the two stages

Special Mantra to Increase the Merit One Hundred Thousand Times

chom den de de zhin shek pa dra chom pa yang dak pa
dzog pa sang gye nam pa nang dze oe kyi gyal po la chag tsel lo (3x)

jang chub sem pa sem pa chen po kun tu zang po la chag tsel lo (3x)

om pentsa driwa awa boghi ne soha (7x)

om duru duru zaya mukhe soha (7x)

Final Dedication Prayers

May all the important pure wishes be completed due to the blessings of the eminent Victors and their Children (Buddhas and Bodhisattvas), due to the truth that dependent-arising is unbetrayed, and due to the power of my pure spiritual attitude.

May myself, family and all sentient beings in all lifetimes due to Lama Tsong Khapa being the direct guru, never be separated away, even for a second, from the pure complete path admired by the Victorious Ones.

Due to the merits of myself and others, may the victorious teachings of Losang Dragpa flourish for a long time. May all the centers and projects of the FPMT receive all the necessary conditions to preserve and spread the teachings of Lama Tsong Khapa immediately. May all obstacles be pacified, may the general organization and the individual meditation centers, all the activities to preserve and spread the Dharma, particularly Lama Tsong Khapa's teachings, cause the teachings to continue without degeneration and spread in the minds of all sentient beings. May all the necessary conditions be received immediately, without any obstacle, and the members who have sacrificed their life to benefit others throughout the organization have a long life, be healthy, may all their activities please the virtuous friend and in all their lives may they always be guided by a perfectly qualified Mahayana virtuous friend and all their wishes immediately succeed according to the Dharma.

This Light Offering Practice was composed by Lama Zopa Rinpoche in Taiwan, February, 1994. It was edited by Ven. Sarah Tresher for use by the students of Amitabha Buddhist Center, who on Rinpoche's advice wished to make light offerings at the Center.

Copyright (c) Wisdom Publications.

~End of Post~





--------------------------------------
Technorati: Buddhism Buddha Buddhist Dharma Compassion Wisdom Religion Meditation Zen Philosophy Spirituality Inspiration Peace Insight

Read more!

Biography of Ajahn Chah

Watch playlist on Youtube
In this series of videos, Ajahn Jayasaro speaks about the life of Ajahn Chah. Ajahn Jayasaro is an English disciple of Ajahn Chah, and the writer of Ajahn Chah's biography in Thai language.
http://www.ajahnchah.org/videos.htm

~End of Post~





--------------------------------------
Technorati: Buddhism Buddha Buddhist Dharma Compassion Wisdom Religion Meditation Zen Philosophy Spirituality Inspiration Peace Insight

Read more!