[Chandrakirti,_Mikyo_Dorje]_The_Moon_of_Wisdom.pdf
Alex Lansvisibility
…
description
529 pages
link
1 file
AI-generated Abstract
Over twenty-five hundred years ago, the Buddha described the nature of reality in his teachings on Transcendent Wisdom (Prajnaparamita). Nagarjuna later summarized these teachings logically. Chandrakirti's 'Entering the Middle Way' clarifies the meaning of Nagarjuna’s work, addressing aspects like the non-reality of phenomena, the refutation of the Mind-Only School, and the true nature of self, while Mikyö Dorje provides further commentary on Chandrakirti's verses, intending to unlock the realization akin to that of past enlightened masters.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
The Buddhist saint N=ag=arjuna, who lived in South India in approximately the second century CE, is undoubtedly the most important, influential, and widely studied Mah=ay=ana Buddhist philosopher. His many works include texts addressed to lay audiences, letters of advice to kings, and a set of penetrating metaphysical and epistemological treatises. His greatest philosophical work, the M?lamadhyamikak=arik=a--read and studied by philosophers in all major Buddhist schools of Tibet, China, Japan, and Korea--is one of the most influential works in the history of Indian philosophy. Now, in The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, Jay L. Garfield provides a clear and eminently readable translation of N=ag=arjuna's seminal work, offering those with little or no prior knowledge of Buddhist philosophy a view into the profound logic of the M?lamadhyamikak=arik=a. Garfield presents a superb translation of the Tibetan text of M?lamadhyamikak=arik=a in its entirety, and a commentary reflecting the Tibetan tradition through which N=ag=arjuna's philosophical influence has largely been transmitted. Illuminating the systematic character of N=ag=arjuna's reasoning, Garfield shows how N=ag=arjuna develops his doctrine that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence, that is, than nothing exists substantially or independently. Despite lacking any essence, he argues, phenomena nonetheless exist conventionally, and that indeed conventional existence and ultimate emptiness are in fact the same thing. This represents the radical understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of the two truths, or two levels of reality. He offers a verse-by-verse commentary that explains N=ag=arjuna's positions and arguments in the language of Western metaphysics and epistemology, and connects N=ag=arjuna's concerns to those of Western philosophers such as Sextus, Hume, and Wittgenstein. An accessible translation of the foundational text for all Mah=ay=ana Buddhism, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way offers insight to all those interested in the nature of reality.
Weekly Reflections - Mūlamadhyamakakārikā I, Root Verses of the Middle Way by Nagarjuna
What is he asking us to think about and how does that enter into your understanding of the study of a text? After hearing his explanation how does it make you think about the learning process?
Buddhist Teachings about the Middle: a critical study of the Majjhe-sutta of the Aṅguttara-nikāya
The Majjhe sutta, which comes in The Book of the Sixes (chakka nipāta) of the Aṅguttara-nikāya, incorporates six interpretations (by six different elder monks) of the Buddha’s phrase ‘the middle’. Later, they await the verdict of the Buddha to make it clear whose understanding was the most reliable. After hearing a report of their discussion, the Buddha consented to all six definitions and further drove away their doubts by explicitly confirming the first monk’s version. The term ‘majjhena’, which means ‘the middle’ or ‘Central Philosophy’, occasionally appears in the Nikāya texts and is similar to the term ‘majjhe’ ([in] the middle). Furthermore, while the term ‘majjhimā’ symbolizes ‘the middle path’, the ‘majjhe’ of the Majjhe sutta stands for neither of these two meanings. However, by using the term ‘majjhe’, the sutta does present expositions akin to ‘majjhena’ as ‘Central Philosophy’. Thus, this paper proposes to compare the similarities and dissimilarities between ‘the middle’ (majjhe) and ‘Central Philosophy’ (majjhena). In addition, it aims to question the possibility of the setting up of a different middle teaching in the Majjhe sutta, one which differs from the Kaccāyanagotta sutta. The scope of this paper addresses the “philosophical” aspect of ‘the middle’ in Buddhism.
Nāgārjuna: Buddhist Philosopher of the Middle Way Fall 2003
This course focuses on the philosophy of Nāgārjuna, a crucially important (or unimportant?) Buddhist philosopher from the first or second century (CE) in South Asia. Nāgārjuna’s thought revolves around a critique of “essence” (svabhāva), and his critique results in the claim that all entities are “empty” (śūnya), in that they lack any such essence. For Nāgārjuna, this lack of essence, which he calls “emptiness” (śūnyatā), plays a central role in Buddhist soteriology, for it cures the “grasping at essences” (ātmagrāha) or essentialism that lies at the root of all suffering. The course centers on Nāgārjuna’s most famous (or infamous) work, Wisdom (prajñā) or the Root Verses on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā).
Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way: Post-classical Kagyü Discourses on Mind, Emptiness and Buddha-Nature. (2016). Vol. 1. 441 pp. ISBN 13: 978-3-902501-28-8. WSTB No. 90.1. Co-authored with Martina Draszczyk.
https://www.istb.univie.ac.at/cgi-bin/wstb/wstb.cgi?ID=93&show_description=1
This two-volume publication explores the complex philosophy of Mahāmudrā that developed in Tibetan Dwags po Bka’ brgyud traditions between the 15th and 16th centuries CE. It examines the attempts to articulate and defend Bka’ brgyud views and practices by four leading post-classical thinkers: (1) Shākya mchog ldan (1423‒1507), a celebrated yet controversial Sa skya scholar who developed a strong affiliation with the Karma Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā tradition in the last half of his life, (2) Karma phrin las Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1456‒1539), a renowned Karma Bka’ brgyud scholar-yogin and tutor to the Eighth Karma pa, (3) the Eighth Karma pa himself, Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507‒1554), who was among the most erudite and influential scholar-hierarchs of his generation, (4) and Padma dkar po (1527‒1592), Fourth ’Brug chen of the ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud lineage who is generally acknowledged as its greatest scholar and systematizer. The work is devoted to clarifying how each of these authors attempted not only to establish the continuity of Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā doctrines and practices with authoritative Indo-Tibetan traditions of exegesis (bshad lugs) and praxis (sgrub lugs) but also to defend them against charges of incoherence and even heresy (chos min, chos log) in an intellectual climate increasingly dominated and riven by sectarian exclusivism and religious conservativism. Against detractors who had raised questions about the Indian provenance of certain Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā doctrines such as Sgam po pa’s “White Panacea” (dkar po gcig thub), and also doubts about whether such teachings should even be considered Buddhist at all, the four authors stood united in promoting this tradition as a way firmly grounded in insights and methods of Indian Buddhist third turning sūtras, the tantras, and the spiritual songs (dohā) and instructions (upadeśa) of the Indian mahāsiddhas. Sgam po pa’s Mahāmudrā is presented as a path that distils from these traditions the most direct and effective means of reaching the Mahāyāna goal of spiritual awakening for the sake of oneself and others. Post-classical Mahāmudrā exegetes generally viewed the rapprochement between Mahāmudrā and certain anti-foundationalist strains of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy — specifically, the *Prāsaṅgika (“Consequentialist”) and Apratiṣṭhāna (“Nonfoundationalist”) systems — as central to their philosophical aims. They framed this synthesis in terms of the reconciliation of affirmative (cataphatic) and negative (apophatic) styles of thought and discourse. This is discernable in our four authors’ attempts to reconcile two basic models of truth or reality (satya) that had long been discussed and debated by Indian and Tibetan Buddhist scholars: (1) a differentiation model based on robust distinctions between conventional and ultimate truths (saṃvṛtisatya and paramārthasatya) and their associated modes of cognition and emptiness, and (2) an identification or unity (zung ’jug : yuganaddha) model of the two truths and their associated modes of cognition and emptiness. Whereas the differentiation model was typically aligned with a strongly innatist view of the ultimate (buddha nature, the nature of mind, or the nature of reality) that underscored its “sublime otherness” (gzhan mchog) from all that is conventional and adventitious, the unity model, predicated on the view of a common ground uniting all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, emphasized the pervasiveness of the ultimate and its immanence within the conventional in order to indicate how the ultimate permeates the mind-streams of individuals in bondage. In a similar vein, these scholars sought to chart a middle way between opposing Indo-Tibetan dogmas regarding the nature of reality which had become aligned with positive versus negative appraisals of the ultimate, as exemplified by the heated inter-sectarian disputes between Tibetan Other-emptiness (gzhan stong) and Self-emptiness (rang stong) views that had erupted in the fourteenth century. If advocating a “middle path beyond extremes” (mtha’ bral dbu ma’i lam) meant avoiding the postulation of a metaphysical absolute beyond time, matter and the entire nexus of dependent arising, a view they attributed to the Jo nang school, it also meant circumventing the kind of unwarranted deprecation of ultimate reality that they saw as the undesirable result of taking the ultimate to consist in sheer emptiness (stong pa rkyang pa) — a complete absence of anything whatsoever — that was the scope of a nonaffirming negation (med dgag), a view they associated mainly with the Dge lugs pa school. It is in light of the shared concern of these post-classical thinkers to ply a middle course between eternalist Gzhan stong-based and nihilist Rang stong-based currents of Buddhist thought within the framework of an affirmative yet resolutely anti-foundationalist approach to goal-realization that we can broadly characterize their primary philosophical orientation as a “Mahāmudrā of the Middle Way”. This work is divided into two volumes: the first offers a detailed philosophical analysis of the authors’ principal views and justifications of Mahāmudrā against the background of Indian and Tibetan Buddhist doctrines on mind, emptiness and buddha nature; the second comprises an annotated anthology of their seminal writings on Mahāmudrā accompanied by critical editions and introductions. These two volumes are the result of research that was generously funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) from 2012 to 2015 under the supervision of Prof. Klaus-Dieter Mathes. The project was entitled “‘Emptiness of Other’ (Gzhan stong) in the Tibetan ‘Great Seal’ (Mahāmudrā) Traditions of the 15th and 16th Centuries” (FWF Project number P23826-G15).
Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way: Post-classical Kagyü Discourses on Mind, Emptiness and Buddha-Nature. (2016). Vol. 2. 254 pp. ISBN 13: 978-3-902501-28-8. WSTB No. 90.2. Co-authored with Martina Draszczyk.
This two-volume publication explores the complex philosophy of Mahāmudrā that developed in Tibetan Dwags po Bka’ brgyud traditions between the 15th and 16th centuries CE. It examines the attempts to articulate and defend Bka’ brgyud views and practices by four leading post-classical thinkers: (1) Shākya mchog ldan (1423‒1507), a celebrated yet controversial Sa skya scholar who developed a strong affiliation with the Karma Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā tradition in the last half of his life, (2) Karma phrin las Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1456‒1539), a renowned Karma Bka’ brgyud scholar-yogin and tutor to the Eighth Karma pa, (3) the Eighth Karma pa himself, Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507‒1554), who was among the most erudite and influential scholar-hierarchs of his generation, (4) and Padma dkar po (1527‒1592), Fourth ’Brug chen of the ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud lineage who is generally acknowledged as its greatest scholar and systematizer. The work is devoted to clarifying how each of these authors attempted not only to establish the continuity of Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā doctrines and practices with authoritative Indo-Tibetan traditions of exegesis (bshad lugs) and praxis (sgrub lugs) but also to defend them against charges of incoherence and even heresy (chos min, chos log) in an intellectual climate increasingly dominated and riven by sectarian exclusivism and religious conservativism. Against detractors who had raised questions about the Indian provenance of certain Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā doctrines such as Sgam po pa’s “White Panacea” (dkar po gcig thub), and also doubts about whether such teachings should even be considered Buddhist at all, the four authors stood united in promoting this tradition as a way firmly grounded in insights and methods of Indian Buddhist third turning sūtras, the tantras, and the spiritual songs (dohā) and instructions (upadeśa) of the Indian mahāsiddhas. Sgam po pa’s Mahāmudrā is presented as a path that distils from these traditions the most direct and effective means of reaching the Mahāyāna goal of spiritual awakening for the sake of oneself and others. Post-classical Mahāmudrā exegetes generally viewed the rapprochement between Mahāmudrā and certain anti-foundationalist strains of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy — specifically, the *Prāsaṅgika (“Consequentialist”) and Apratiṣṭhāna (“Nonfoundationalist”) systems — as central to their philosophical aims. They framed this synthesis in terms of the reconciliation of affirmative (cataphatic) and negative (apophatic) styles of thought and discourse. This is discernable in our four authors’ attempts to reconcile two basic models of truth or reality (satya) that had long been discussed and debated by Indian and Tibetan Buddhist scholars: (1) a differentiation model based on robust distinctions between conventional and ultimate truths (saṃvṛtisatya and paramārthasatya) and their associated modes of cognition and emptiness, and (2) an identification or unity (zung ’jug : yuganaddha) model of the two truths and their associated modes of cognition and emptiness. Whereas the differentiation model was typically aligned with a strongly innatist view of the ultimate (buddha nature, the nature of mind, or the nature of reality) that underscored its “sublime otherness” (gzhan mchog) from all that is conventional and adventitious, the unity model, predicated on the view of a common ground uniting all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, emphasized the pervasiveness of the ultimate and its immanence within the conventional in order to indicate how the ultimate permeates the mind-streams of individuals in bondage. In a similar vein, these scholars sought to chart a middle way between opposing Indo-Tibetan dogmas regarding the nature of reality which had become aligned with positive versus negative appraisals of the ultimate, as exemplified by the heated inter-sectarian disputes between Tibetan Other-emptiness (gzhan stong) and Self-emptiness (rang stong) views that had erupted in the fourteenth century. If advocating a “middle path beyond extremes” (mtha’ bral dbu ma’i lam) meant avoiding the postulation of a metaphysical absolute beyond time, matter and the entire nexus of dependent arising, a view they attributed to the Jo nang school, it also meant circumventing the kind of unwarranted deprecation of ultimate reality that they saw as the undesirable result of taking the ultimate to consist in sheer emptiness (stong pa rkyang pa) — a complete absence of anything whatsoever — that was the scope of a nonaffirming negation (med dgag), a view they associated mainly with the Dge lugs pa school. It is in light of the shared concern of these post-classical thinkers to ply a middle course between eternalist Gzhan stong-based and nihilist Rang stong-based currents of Buddhist thought within the framework of an affirmative yet resolutely anti-foundationalist approach to goal-realization that we can broadly characterize their primary philosophical orientation as a “Mahāmudrā of the Middle Way”. This work is divided into two volumes: the first offers a detailed philosophical analysis of the authors’ principal views and justifications of Mahāmudrā against the background of Indian and Tibetan Buddhist doctrines on mind, emptiness and buddha nature; the second comprises an annotated anthology of their seminal writings on Mahāmudrā accompanied by critical editions and introductions. These two volumes are the result of research that was generously funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) from 2012 to 2015 under the supervision of Prof. Klaus-Dieter Mathes. The project was entitled “‘Emptiness of Other’ (Gzhan stong) in the Tibetan ‘Great Seal’ (Mahāmudrā) Traditions of the 15th and 16th Centuries” (FWF Project number P23826-G15).
The middle length discourses of the Buddha: a new translation of the Majjhima Nikāya
1995
This third edition of The Middle Length Discourses (2005) includes numerous corrections and changes suggested to me by Bhikkhu Ñ›˚atusita, who diligently compared the entire translation with the original P›li text. I have also included other changes suggested to me by Ajahn Brahmava˙so and S›ma˚era An›layo. B.B.
Nāgārjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way (David J. Kalupahana)
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 1987
Instructions on the View (lta khrid) of the Two Truths: Prajñāraśmi’s (1518-1584) Bden gnyis gsal ba’i sgron me
Revue d’Études Tibétaines, 2011
ince the time of the Tibetan emperor Khri srong lde'u bstan (reign 755-ca. 800), the Mādhyamika position, originally taught by Nāgārjuna, has represented the supreme philosophical view (dṛṣṭi, lta ba) of Tibetan Buddhism. It is the keystone of Tibetan Buddhist doxographies (siddhānta, grub mtha') that classify Indian Buddhist philosophical schools. One of the Mādhyamika School's primary doctrines, the doctrine of the two truths (satyadvaya, bden gnyis)-relative truth (saṃvṛitisatya, kun rdzob kyi bden pa) and absolute truth (paramārthasatya, don dam gyi bden pa)-represents the quintessence of the "middle path" (madhyamā pratipad, dbu ma'i lam) that avoids all extremes. Inspired by the Buddha's teaching of a middle path that avoids both hedonism and asceticism, the Mādhyamika School articulates a metaphysical middle path that avoids both eternalism and nihilism.
The Moon of Wisdom
The Moon of Wisdom
^0@206
Chapter Six of Chandrakirti’s
Entering the Middle Way
With Commentary from
the Eighth Karmapa, Mikyö Dorje’s
Chariot of the Dakpo Kagyü Siddhas
Translated under the guidance of
Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso Rinpoche
by Ari Goldfield, Jules Levinson,
Jim Scott, and Birgit Scott
Snow Lion Publications
ithaca, new york • boulder, colorado
Snow Lion Publications
P. O. Box 6483
Ithaca, New York 14851 USA
(607) 273-8519
www.snowlionpub.com
Copyright © 2005 Marpa Foundation
www.ktgrinpoche.org
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Printed in Canada on acid-free recycled paper.
Designed and typeset by Gopa & Ted2, Inc.
ISBN-10 1-55939-231-2
ISBN-13 978-1-55939-231-0
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, Karma-pa VIII, 1507-1554.
[Dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rnam bŸad dpal ldan dus gsum mkhyen pa’i ¤al luº
Dwags brgyud grub pa’i Ÿiº rta. English. Selections]
The moon of wisdom : chapter six of Chandrakirti’s Entering the middle way
/ with commentary from the Eighth Karmapa, Mikyö Dorje’s Chariot of the
Dakpo Kagyü Siddhas ; translated by Ari Goldfield, Jules Levinson, Jim Scott,
and Birgit Scott ; under the guidance of Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso Rinpoche
p. cm.
ISBN-13: 978-1-55939-231-0 (alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 1-55939-231-2 (alk. paper)
1. Candrakırti. Madhyamak›vat›ra. 2. M›dhyamika (Buddhism)—Early
works to 1800. I. Goldfield, Ari, 1969–. II. Candrakırti. Madhyamak›vat›ra.
Chapter 6. English. III. Title.
BQ2910.M365M513 2005
294.3’85—dc22
2005012102
Table of Contents
Introductory Verses
by Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso Rinpoche
7
Translators’ Preface
11
Part I: The Refutation of Arising from
the Four Extremes—Section A
Translated by Ari Goldfield
16
Part II: The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
Translated by Jules Levinson
123
Part III: The Refutation of Arising from
the Four Extremes—Section B
Translated by Ari Goldfield
292
Part IV: The Absence of Personal Self
Translated by Jim Scott
338
Part V: The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
Translated by Birgit Scott
454
Notes
517
Introductory Verses
by Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso Rinpoche
!, ,<-2.J-=J$?-?-I<-&A$,
Om delek su gyur chik
May everything transform into bliss and excellence.
:#R<-=R-2<-0->J?-<2-1<-KA/-IA, ,.$R%?-.R/-)A-28A/-$?=-2<-LJ.-0/A, ,.0=-3$R/-:1$?-0-[-12-GA?-36.-0:A, ,.2-3-l-2->J?-<2-k..-L%-,
The meaning of the middle turning’s Prajnaparamita Sutras
Is perfectly illuminated by the glorious protector Nagarjuna’s
miraculous treatise, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.
,.J-;A-.$R%?-.R/-=J$?-0<-:PJ=-2-/A, ,.0=-w/-^-2-P$?-0?-36.-0;A, ,2!/-2&R?-.2-3-:)$-0-H.-0<-:1$?,
The Fundamental Wisdom’s meaning is excellently explained
In the glorious Chandrakirti’s extraordinary commentary, Entering the
Middle Way.
8
The Moon of Wisdom
,.J-;A-5B$-.R/-=J$?-0<-:PJ=-2-/A, ,,/-<?-$9A$?-.%R?-.0=-w/-!k0, ,2o.-0-3A-2*R.-hR-eJ?-36.-0-;A, ,?$?-2o.-P2-0:A->A%-g-8J?P$?-0, ,12-2o.-0-;A-:PJ=-5=-H.-0<-:1$?,
The meaning of the words in Chandrakirti’s commentary
Are excellently explained by Chenrezik in person,
The glorious Eighth Karmapa, Mikyö Dorje,
In his Chariot of the Dakpo Kagyü Siddhas,
An extraordinary commentary from the perspective of the
practice lineage.
,.J-;A-?J3?-2*J.-S$-0:A-:PJ=-2-:.A, ,3,:-28A-*J-:$R$-?J3?-43.$$-0-.%-, ,$%-9$-2.$-3J.-!R%-*A.-2&-S$-i3?, ,,J$-(J/-92-.R/;R%?-mR$?-:.?-KA<-.%-, ,$?%-(J/-hR-eJ-,J$-0:A-*3?-=J/-=, ,35/:6B/-:$R$-=-H.-0<-:1$?-0-.%-, ,!R%-*A.-2&-S$-.$:-2-2&-S$-=,
,.<-2>.-LJ.-=-H.-0<-:1$?-0:A-KA<,
The Chariot of the Dakpo Kagyü Siddhas’ explanation of the sixth
chapter:
The refutations of arising from the four extremes and of the Mind-Only
School,
The explanations of personal selflessness and the sixteen emptinesses,
Perfectly encompass all the profound teachings of the Mahayana, and
Teach an extraordinary way to abandon clinging to the attributes of
secret Vajrayana practice.
As well, it is extraordinary to explain the sixteen emptinesses in
connection with the sixteen joys.
Introductory Verses
9
,=R-4-28A-;A?-(->?-<J-+<-2, ,<%-!R2?-i3-.JR.-$?=-0R-3,R%-KA<-.%-,
,92-.R/-i3-.JR.-]R-;A?-+<-5=-i3?, ,3-:SJ?-?R-?R<-$?=-2->J?-0:AKA<,
Thus, each of four lotsawas translated one of the chapter’s four sections.
So that each one’s capacity for analysis
And analytical choices in translating teachings on profound reality
would be clearly evident,
They have worked separately and their translations are independent.
,.LA/-)A-{.-=-=J$?-0<-+<-2-:.A?, ,..-2lR/->J?-<2-w/-0:A-aR25S$?-GA, ,i3-.JR.-]R-PR?-<2-+-:1J=-2-.%-, ,,J-5S3-3/-0-<%-><-<%PR=->R$
For students with faith, diligence, and intelligence,
May this excellent translation into English
Cause their capacity for analysis to perfectly increase,
And bring doubts’ darkness to be self-arisen and self-liberated.
,=R-B-i3?-G%->J?-<2-3,<-KA/-+J, ,$8/-.R/-2lJ-2-(J/-0R-.%-:VJ=2?, ,1-3-*J-:VJ=-.P-.%-2&?-i3?-=, ,1/-0-o-(J/-:P2-0:A-o<I<-&A$,
May this work be a cause for its translators as well
To bring their wisdom to its perfection,
And use it together with altruistic great love
To bring to their fathers, mothers, relatives, friends and enemies
Benefit in a truly vast way.
10
The Moon of Wisdom
8J?-3#/-0R-5=-OA3?-o-35S-<A/-0R-(J?-$?%?-?R,
Spoken extemporaneously on October 20, 2004, San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A.
Translators’ Preface
O
ver twenty-five hundred years ago, the Buddha described the
inconceivable, perfectly pure true nature of reality in his teachings
on Transcendent Wisdom (Sanskrit: Prajnaparamita). Some five centuries
later, the noble protector Nagarjuna, in his seminal text The Fundamental
Wisdom of the Middle Way,1 summarized these vast teachings of the Buddha and used logical reasoning to prove the validity of the Buddha’s words.
Entering the Middle Way is the glorious Chandrakirti’s2 explanation of
the meaning of Nagarjuna’s work. Its sixth chapter, which constitutes the
majority of the text, has four main sections: an explanation of how in genuine reality phenomena do not truly arise; a refutation of the Mind-Only
(Sanskrit: Chittamatra) School’s assertion that mind truly exists; a refutation of the true existence of the personal self; and an explanation of the sixteen types of emptiness taught by the Buddha in the Transcendent
Wisdom sutras.
In the course of his treatise, composed in succinct verse form, Chandrakirti clarifies the ultimate meaning of the Buddha’s Transcendent Wisdom teachings. The Eighth Karmapa, Mikyö Dorje, one of the most
erudite and prolific scholars of the Karma Kagyü lineage of Tibetan Buddhism, elaborates on the meaning of these verses in a commentary that he
proclaims to contain the key to gaining the realization achieved by all the
enlightened masters of the past, present, and future.
Our guru, the pre-eminent Kagyü master Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso
Rinpoche, directed each of us to translate one of the four sections of the
verses in Entering the Middle Way’s sixth chapter, along with the key portions of Mikyö Dorje’s commentary that explain the verses’ meaning,3 and
to publish our translations in this book, to which he gave its title. When
we were preparing our translations for publication, Rinpoche instructed
us to use our own individual translation styles and choice of terms in each
of our sections, so that readers could see how different translators analyze,
choose words, and write in different ways. Rinpoche also instructed us to
12
The Moon of Wisdom
include the Tibetan text,4 for the benefit of Western students learning
Tibetan and Tibetan students learning English, and also so that readers
could examine the translation against the original Tibetan text and give us
their comments and corrections, so that we might be able to improve the
translation in subsequent editions.
Khenpo Rinpoche, who spent the first part of his life studying, meditating, and teaching in the caves and monasteries of Tibet, India, and
Bhutan, has been teaching extensively throughout the world since 1977.5
Wherever Rinpoche goes, the consistent focus of his teachings is the Buddha’s most profound descriptions of the true nature of reality, which Rinpoche explains are the essential key to transcending confusion and
suffering, and to performing compassionate activity that is of meaningful
benefit to others. Rinpoche notes that the education that modern people
receive gives us an excellent advantage as we approach these profound
teachings; from an early age we have trained in developing the analytical
tools we need to study and understand them. Since these teachings are so
important and modern students have the ability to put them into practice,
Rinpoche says that it is the ideal time for works such as Entering the Middle Way to be translated, published, and studied.
Although the teachings on the true nature of reality may seem difficult
to understand at first, Rinpoche explains that if students approach them
in a series of graduated stages, it is much easier to progress in gaining understanding and experience. Therefore, Rinpoche’s advice to the readers of
The Moon of Wisdom is that it would be of great benefit to your understanding if you read his books The Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness6 and The Sun of Wisdom7 before you begin to study this volume.
Furthermore, following the tradition of studying the classic texts on profound topics, it is beneficial to consult more than just one commentary on
the root text in order to clarify difficult points. Jamgön Mipham’s commentary on Entering the Middle Way is one that Rinpoche has taught from
widely, and he recommends that you consult its translation, published in
Introduction to the Middle Way,8 along with whatever other translations and
transcripts of different teachers’ explanations of the text you can find.
We are grateful beyond measure to Khenpo Rinpoche, whose teaching,
inspiration, and blessing are what made this book possible. We also offer
our deepest thanks for the teachings and assistance given to us by Nitartha
Institute:9 by its head teacher, Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, and faculty
Translators’ Preface
13
members Acharya Lama Tenpa Gyaltsen and Acharya Sherab Gyaltsen
Negi, who taught us this text, answered our translation questions, and gave
us transcripts of their own teachings on the text; its translators, Elizabeth
Callahan and Tyler Dewar, who made available to us their respective translations of Karmapa Mikyö Dorje and Karmapa Wangchuk Dorje’s commentaries on Entering the Middle Way, which we consulted frequently in
the preparation of our own; and its co-director Scott Wellenbach, who
made it easy for us to obtain whatever of the Institute’s teaching materials
we needed. Thanks as well to Rose Taylor for her excellent editorial work
on the Tibetan text in the section refuting the view of the Mind-Only
School.
May whatever merit comes from publishing this book be a cause for all
sentient beings to enter and perfect the path that brings wisdom and compassion together.
Ari Goldfield
Miami, Florida
October 2004
!, ,.2-3-=-:)$-0:A-i3-2>.-.0=-w/-.?-$?3-3HJ/-0:A-8=-=%?$?-2o.-P2-0:A->A%-g-8J?-L-2-=?-?J3?-2*J.-S$-0-/A,
The Approach—the Sixth Bodhisattva Ground
from Chandrakirti’s Entering the Middle Way
with Commentary from Karmapa VIII Mikyö Dorje’s
The Teachings of Glorious Düsum Khyenpa—
The Chariot of the Dakpo Kagyü Siddhas
,S$-0-=, ;=-&/-?:A-%R-2R-3.R<-2!/, ;=-!R%-*A.-o?-0<-2>., ?:A;R/-+/-2eR.-.J-.R/-2#-2:R, .%-0R-=, ?-.%R?-.%-, ;R/-+/->J<-KA/-IA-(J2-2eR.-0:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
3%R/-.-KR$?-0<-3*3-28$-?J3?-$/?-+J,,
mR$?-0:A-?%?-o?-(R?-=-3%R/-KR$?->A%-,,
:.A-gJ/-:L%-2:A-.J-*A.-3,R%-2-.J,,
>J?-<2-$/?-0?-:$R$-0-,R2-0<-:I<,, 1
?-s-0-2?3-$+/-IA-1<-KA/-;R%?-?-.$-0:A-o-=?-?-S$-0-3%R/-.KR$?-0<-3*3-0<-28$-0-=-?J3?-$/?-+J->J?-0-.%->J?-L:A-3R?35/-8A-2:A-:$R$-0-,R2-0<-:I<-+J, nJ/-:.A-0-43-IA-gJ/-&A%-:L%-2-923R:C-.J-*A.-3,R%-2:A-?J3?-.0:-.J-/A->J?-<2-GA-1-<R=-+-KA/-0-=-$/?0?-;R%?-?-.$-0:A-KA<, :.A:A-}<-:$R$-0-,R2-0-/A-3-;A/-+J, ?-s<-.A/?R$?-s-$4S-2R<-,R.-0?-/A-(R?-,3?-&.-$9$?-2f/-.%-:S-2<-#R%-.(.-=,
Part I:
The Refutation of Arising from
the Four Extremes—Section A
[113.17]1 1. A brief explanation of the essence of the sixth ground,
the subject that realizes emptiness2
2. An extensive explanation of emptiness, the object realized
3. A concluding summary by means of a description of the sixth ground’s
qualities
1. A brief explanation of the essence of the sixth ground,
the subject that realizes emptiness
1.1. The actual ground itself
1.2. A description of the greatness of the quality of transcendent wisdom
1.1. The actual ground itself
The bodhisattvas, whose minds rest in the equipoise of the Approach,
Approach the qualities of perfect buddhahood.
They see the suchness of dependent arising
And from abiding in wisdom, they will attain cessation. (1)
[114] On the fifth ground, the bodhisattvas achieved transcendent concentration that was completely pure, and as a result, their minds now abide
in the equipoise of the Approach, the sixth ground. Here they attain the
cessation in which all the fabrications of characteristics of a knower and a
knowable object have dissolved, because these bodhisattvas, who see the
profound suchness of merely conditional dependent arising, abide in transcendent wisdom, and this makes them completely pure. They did not
attain this cessation earlier because on the first five grounds they mainly
engaged in the five transcendent practices of generosity and so forth, and
thus while at that stage they had the understanding that all phenomena
18
The Moon of Wisdom
:.A<-/A-$9$?-2f/-.%-35%?-0<-;%-3A-gR$-0:A-KA<, ?-:.A-=-3%R/-.KR$?-0-8J?-L-!J-s-0<-=3-2.J/-=-.3A$?-/?-!R2?-2&-?R$?-mR$?0:A-?%?-o?-GA-(R?-i3?-=-*J-2<-I<-0:A-KA<-<R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
)A-v<-=R%-2:A-5S$?-!/-2.J-]$-+,,
3A$-w/-*J?-2-$&A$-$A?-:.R.-0-;A,,
;=-.-:OA.-0-.J-28A/-:.A<-;%-]R?,,
3A$-*3?-;R/-+/-]%?-+J-o=-*A.-:PR,, 2
;R/-+/-IA-5S$?->J<-KA/-=-<$-=?-0?-?-:.A<-;%->J<-KA/-IA-]R?-3A$*3?-0-v-2:A-.A/-?R$?->J<-KA/-IA?-3-9A/-0-:.A<-9A/-0<-L?-/?-;R/+/-]%?-+J-o=-2-*A.-GA-$R-:1%-.-:PR-!J, ;%-.$-0:A-=3-.%-.J-=?2^R$-0-*A.->J?-0:A-KA<, )A-v<-=R%-2:A-5S$?-!/-2.J-]$-+, ,3A$-w/*J?-2-$&A$-$A?-:.R.-0-;A, ,;=-.-OA.-0-.J-28A/-/R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
19
are like reflections, here they do not even have the concept of phenomena
being equivalent to reflections.
This ground is called the Approach because, having focused on the truth
of the path on the fifth ground, the bodhisattvas have now come closer to
attaining the ten powers and all the other qualities of perfect buddhahood.
1.2. A description of the greatness of the quality
of transcendent wisdom
Just as a person with eyesight
Can easily lead a whole group of blind people wherever they wish to go,
So here, the mind endowed with wisdom
Guides the blind qualities to the level of the victorious ones themselves. (2)
The accumulation of excellent qualities depends upon transcendent wisdom and, up until now, generosity and so forth have been qualities as if
lacking in eyesight because wisdom has not yet embraced them. Here on
this ground, however, the mind endowed with transcendent wisdom
embraces these qualities of generosity and so forth, and guides them to the
level of the victorious ones themselves. It can do this because it knows the
correct paths from the incorrect ones, in a similar manner to how it is that
a person with eyesight can easily lead a whole group of blind people wherever they wish to go.
20
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, $%-=-2gJ/-/?-2>.-0-.%-, ;=-$%-=-2>.-0-.%-, (R?$%-2>.-0:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
)A-v<-.J-;A?-(J?-92-(R?-gR$?-0,,
=%-.%-$8/-;%-<A$?-0?-;A/-0?-/,,
.J-v<-:1$?-0-[-12-$8%-=$?-=?,,
)A-v<-$/?-0:A-=$?-28A/-2eR.-0<-L,, 3
)A-v<->J<-KA/-=-,R.-0:A-?J3?-.0:-.J-;A?-(J?-92-0:A-(R?-i3?-GA-(R?*A.-gR$?-0-.J-v<-.3-0-.$-$A-=$?-=?-.J-28A/-$>J$?-0:A-=%-.%-,
$8/-;%-<A$?-0?-2!/-L-;A/-0?-/-5=-.J-v<-:1$?-0-[-12-GA?3HJ/-/?-$?=-2<-36.-0:A-$8%-=$?-=?-)A-v<-$/?-0:A-=%-<A$?3/-%$-$A-=$?-28A/-2.$-$A?-2eR.-0<-L:R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
21
[116] 2. An extensive explanation of emptiness, the object
realized
2.1. The basis for the explanation
2.2. The ones to whom the explanation is given
2.3. The Dharma that is explained
2.1. The basis for the explanation
The way the bodhisattvas realize what is most profound, essential reality,
Is explained with quotations and reasonings.
Therefore, just as the noble Nagarjuna did in his texts,
So will I explain things here. (3)
[117.5] The way that the bodhisattvas who practice transcendent wisdom
realize what is most profound, phenomena’s essential reality, in the tradition of the genuine ones is explained with quotations of the Tathagata’s
statements and with logical reasonings. The noble Nagarjuna knew this
and illuminated it for us in his texts, and therefore, just as he presented
such quotations, reasonings, and quintessential practice instructions in his
own writings, so will I explain things here.
22
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, */-0-0R:C-$R.-2g$-0-.%-, .J-=-3*/-0<-$.3?-0:R, ,.%0R-=, g$?-$?3-IA-|R-/?-{=-w/-KA-$R.-2g$ ,.J-=-!R%-*A.-2!/-0:A1/-;R/-2>.-0:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
?R-?R-*J-2R:C-.?-/:%-!R%-0-*A.-,R?-/?,,
/%-.-<2-+-.$:-2-;%-.%-;%-.-:L%-,,
<2-+-.$:-2-=?-L%-3(A-3?-3A$-2_/-8A%-,,
=?-GA-2-%-w%-2<-:I<-2-$%-;A/-0,, 4
.J-=-mR$?-0:A-?%?-o?-]R-;A-?-2R/-;R.,,
.J-*A.-*J-2<-2!/-0:A-$R.-/A-.J-;A/-+J,,
.J-=-.3-0:A-.R/-IA-2.J/-0-2!/-0<-L, 5 !#$
?R-?R-*J-2R:C-.?-/:%-$8/-=?-!R%-0-*A.-GA-(R?-5=-,R?-/?-G%-/%-.-!J;A.-=-<2-+-.$:-2-.%-.%-2:A-..-0-;%-.%-;%-.-:L%-8A%-, <2-+.$:-2-=?-L%-3(A-3?-3A$-2_/-8A%-=?-GA-2-%-w%-2<-I<-0-$%-;A/0-.J-=-mR$?-0:A-?%?-o?-GA-]R-1A2-V=-IA->J?-<2-L%-(2-GA-?-2R/-;R.0-;A/-+J, .J?-!/-3HJ/-IA-(J.-.-lR=-/-M<-.-3%R/-0<-mR$?-0<-:5%-o2:A-KA<, .J?-/-.J-*A.-*J-2<-2!/-0:A-$R.-/A-.J-;A/-+J, .J-=-.3-0:A-.R/-IA2.J/-0-2!/-0<-L-!J, 2!/-0-=?-:V?-2-:(.-:I<-IA-;R/-+/-i3?:L%-2:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
23
[119.2] 2.2. The ones to whom the explanation is given
2.2.1. Examining the vessel of the listener
2.2.2. The advice that one should listen to these teachings
2.2.1. Examining the vessel of the listener
2.2.1.1. Three outer signs that identify fortunate vessels
2.2.1.2. The benefits of explaining emptiness to such individuals
2.2.1.1. Three outer signs that identify fortunate vessels
Those who, even as ordinary beings, upon hearing of emptiness,
Again and again feel great happiness within,
Have their eyes fill with the tears of this utter joy,
And the hairs on their body stand on end—
These are individuals with the seed of the perfect Buddha’s mind.
They are vessels for the teachings on the precise nature.
They should be taught the truth of genuine reality. (4-5c)
[121.6] There are those who, even as ordinary beings, upon hearing from
someone else the Dharma teachings on emptiness, within their minds feel
great happiness and vivid faith again and again; have their eyes fill with the
tears of this utter joy; and have the hairs on their body stand on end. These
are individuals with the seed of the perfect Buddha’s mind—wisdom free
from obscurations, enlightenment—because if they exert themselves on
the path to omniscience, they will quickly awaken into manifest and perfect buddhahood. Therefore, such individuals are vessels for the teachings
on the precise nature. They should be taught the truth of genuine reality
because as a result they will gain the qualities that will now be described.
24
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
.J-=-.J-;A-eJ?-?-:PR-2:A-;R/-+/-:L%-,, 5 %
g$-+-5=-OA3?-;%-.$-]%?-/?-$/?-0<-:I<,,
.A/-0-$+R%-2<-:I<-8A%-~A%-eJ-2!J/-0<-LJ.,,
29R.-0-|R3-LJ.-.J-;A-.$J-2-L%-(2-+,,
:PR-2-.PR=-2<-L-KA<-;R%?-?-2}R-LJ.-&A%-,, 6
mR$?-0:A-L%-(2-?J3?-.0:-i3?-=-$?-0<-LJ.,, 7 !
*/-0R-.J-=-.J-2!/-0?-.R/-3A/-3A-2*J.-0<-3-9., 2!/-.R/-.J:A-eJ?-?-:PR2:A-;R/-+/-,3?-&.-:L%-2<-:I<-<R, ,.J?-/-(R?-5=-:.A-=-$+J<-fJ.-0v<-.J-3A-*3?-0:A-(J.-GA-;R/-+/-:.A-i3?-2!J/-0<-LJ.-.J, g$-+-3A-.$J-23,:-.$-%R%-2:A-5=-OA3?-;%-.$-]%?-/?-$/?-0<-:I<-+J, 5=-:(=IA?-%/-:PR<-*J?-/-!R%-*A.-GA-v-2-o/-(.-0:A-KA<, ;%-.A/-0-$+R%-2<:I<-8A%-!J-5=-OA3?-GA?-2.J-:PR<-I<-G%-.2=-/-9?-?R$?-:5S-(?-z<LJ.-0?-!R%-*A.-GA-v-2-o/-(.-0:A-KA<, ;%-~A%-eJ-5.-3J.-0-2!J/-0<-LJ..J, !R%-*A.-GA-v-2-~A%-eJ?-9A/-0?-:5%-o-2<-LJ.-GA, $8/-IA?-3-;A/-0:AKA<, ;%-29R.-0-|R3-0<-LJ.-.J, OR-2?-%/-:PR<-:PR-8A%-#-.R$-%/-0<:I<-=, nJ/-.J?-:1$?-0-3-3*J?-/-$.3?-0-3A-,R2-0?-!R%-*A.-GA-v-2(.-0:A-KA<, ,;%-?J3?-.0:-.J:A-.$J-2-,3?-&.-:PR-2-3-=?-0-L%-(2-+21=-2:A-KA<-;R%?-?-}R-2<-LJ.-&A%-!J, .J<-3-2}R?-0:A-.$J-2-/A-?%?-o?GA-o-:V?-3-(.-0<-:L%-2-&/-3-;A/-0:A-KA<, ;%-mR$?-0:A-L%-(2?J3?-.0:-i3?-=-$?-0<-LJ.-.J, ?J3?-.0:-=?-$8/-0?-gJ/-:L%-!R/-
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
25
2.2.1.2. The benefits of explaining emptiness to such
individuals
All the good qualities following from that will arise within them.
They always practice pure ethics,
Give generously, practice compassion, cultivate patience,
And the resulting virtue they completely dedicate to all wandering beings’
liberation in enlightenment.
They respect the perfect bodhisattvas. (5d-7a)
Giving these teachings to such listeners is not meaningless. On the contrary, it causes all the good qualities that follow from the meaning of these
teachings to arise within them. Therefore, they regard this system of
Dharma as a newfound precious treasure, and rely on the following qualities in order that it should not diminish:
They always practice pure ethics that avoid all forms of nonvirtue. [122]
The reason for this is that if as a result of corrupted ethics they take birth
in the lower realms, the continuum of their view of emptiness will be cut.
They give generously, because even if through proper ethical conduct
they take rebirth in the higher realms, if they are poverty stricken, they will
have to put so much effort into obtaining food and other means of livelihood that the continuum of their view of emptiness will be cut.
They practice immeasurable compassion, because when the view of
emptiness is embraced by compassion, this produces the enlightenment
of the buddhas, and nothing else can do so.
They cultivate patience, because anger brings rebirth in the lower realms
and an ugly color to one’s face, and if their anger displeases the noble ones,
they will not receive the noble ones’ teachings and the continuum of their
view of emptiness will be cut.
[122.13] Furthermore, these bodhisattvas completely dedicate all of
this virtue so that all wandering beings without exception may be liberated in enlightenment. They do this because virtue that is not so dedicated
will not produce the uninterrupted development of the causes and results
that culminate in enlightenment.
They also respect the perfect bodhisattvas because no one other than
the bodhisattvas can explain dependent arising.
26
The Moon of Wisdom
3A-/?-0:A-KA<,
$*A?-0-/A,
92-&A%-o-(J:A-5=-=-3#?-0:A-*J-2R?-/A,,
<A3-IA?-<2-+-.$:-2:A-?-/A-:,R2-:I<-2?,,
.J-/A-.R/-.-$*J<-2?-=3-:.A-3*/-0<-IA?, 7 #$%
;/-<A%-2<-3J.-.-.$J-5S$?-2?$?-/?-!R%-*A.-92-&A%-.A/-?R$?-o-(J2:A-5=-=-3#?-0:A-*J-2R?-/A-5S$?-.R<-2PR.-/?-<A3-IA?-<2-+-.$:2:A-?-/A-,R2-0<-:I<-2?, <2-.$:A-?-.J-/A-.R/-.-$*J<-2?-:(.-:I<IA-=3-:.A-3*/-0<-IA?->A$-$R,
$?3-0-=-2.$-3J.-$*A?-GA-|R-/?-2>.-0-.%-, !R%-*A.-2&-S$-$A-|R/?-2>.-0:R, ,.%-0R-=, 2.$-3J.-$*A?-?R-?R<-2>.-0-.%-, .R/-2#2:R, ,.%-0R-=, (R?-GA-2.$-3J.-.%-, $%-9$-$A-2.$-3J.-0:R, ,.%-0R-=,
=%-.%-<A$?-0-$*A?-=?,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
27
2.2.2. The advice that one should listen to these teachings
The individual who is skilled in the modes that are profound and vast
Will progress in stages to the ground of Excellent Joy.
Those who wish to do the same, therefore, should listen to the teachings
about this path. (7b-d)
Having gathered the accumulation of virtue uninterruptedly for a long
period of time, the individual who is skilled in the profound mode of
emptiness and the vast modes of generosity and so forth will traverse the
paths of accumulation and junction and progress in stages to the ground
of Excellent Joy.3 Those who wish to do the same, therefore, should listen
to the teachings about this path that will now be presented.
2.3. The Dharma that is explained
2.3.1. An explanation by means of the two types of selflessness
2.3.2. An explanation by means of the sixteen emptinesses
2.3.1. An explanation by means of the two types of
selflessness
2.3.1.1. An explanation of each of the two types of selflessness
individually
2.3.1.2. A concluding summary
2.3.1.1. An explanation of each of the two types of
selflessness individually
2.3.1.1.1. Phenomena’s lack of self-entity
2.3.1.1.2. The selflessness of the individual
2.3.1.1.1. Phenomena’s lack of self-entity
2.3.1.1.1.1. A citation of the Buddha’s speech
2.3.1.1.1.2. Logical reasonings
28
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A, (R?-i3?-GA-;%-.$-0-*A.-)A-v-2-2!/-0-:.A-=-<J-8A$-=%/A, :1$?-0-?-2&-0-=?,
GJ-o=-2:A-Y?-.$-L%-(2-?J3?-.0:A-?-s-0-=-=3-;R%?-?mR$?-0:A-L%-(2-?J3?-.0:-.J-L%-(2-?J3?-.0:A-?-S$-0-=:)$-!J, .J-(R?-3*3-0-*A.-2&?-:)$-$R, ,2&-$%-8J-/, :.Av-!J, (R?-,3?-&.-35/-3-3J.-0<-3*3-0-*A.-.%-, (R?-,3?&.-35/-*A.-3J.-0<-3*3-0-*A.-.%-, .J-28A/-.-*J-2-3J.-0-.%-,
3-*J?-0-.%-, .2J/-0-.%-, $.R.-3-/?-i3-0<-.$-0-.%-, 3R?0-3J.-0-.%-, ]%-2-3J.-0-.%-.R<-2-3J.-0-3*3-0-*A.-.%-, (R?,3?-&.-+-3-.%-kA-=3-.%-3A$-;R<-.%-V$-(-.%-(-^-.%$9$?-2f/-.%-3=-0-v-2<-3*3-0-*A.-.%-, (R?-,3?-&..%R?-0R-.%-.%R?-0R-3J.-0-$*A?-?-3J.-0<-3*3-0-*A.-.J, .J-(R?,3?-&.-GA-<%-28A/-.J-v<-<2-+-gR$?-0-/-iR-8A%-eJ?-?-3,/0:A-29R.-0?-L%-(2-?J3?-.0:A-?-S$-0-3%R/-.-I<-0-eJ?-?,R2-!J,
8J?-$?%?-0-v-2:R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
29
2.3.1.1.1.1. A citation of the Buddha’s speech
A passage from the Buddha’s speech in which he describes phenomena’s
authentic reality, just as it is, can be found in this portion of The Noble
Sutra of the Ten Grounds:
O sons and daughters of the victorious ones, the bodhisattvas
who have completely perfected the path of the fifth ground
enter the sixth ground. They enter it by means of the ten ways
in which phenomena are equal. If you ask, “What are these
ten?,” they are as follows: All phenomena equally (1) have no
attributes;4 (2) all phenomena equally have no defining characteristics;5 (3) similarly, all phenomena are equal in that none will
arise and none are arising; (4) none have arisen; (5) all are free;6
(6) originally and perfectly pure; (7) beyond conceptual fabrication;7 (8) equally neither to be adopted nor rejected; (9) all
phenomena are equally like illusions, dreams, visual distortions,
echoes, water-moons,8 reflections, and emanations; (10) and
finally, all phenomena are the equality of the nonduality of
things and the absence of things.
When all phenomena’s true nature is perfectly realized to be
like that, the sixth bodhisattva ground, the Manifest,9 is attained
by means of this acuity and concordant patience.
So it is taught.
30
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, 3,:-28A:A-*J-2-o?-0<-.$$-0-.%-, !/-mR2-0:A-*J-2-gJ/:VJ=-.-2!/-0-.%-, <A$?-0?-i3-0<-.J.-0:A-.$R?-0-2>.-0:R, ,.%0R-=, 3,:-28A:A-*J-2-.$$-0-.%R?-.%-, 2!$-0-=-:$=-2-%%-2:R,
,.%-0R-=, *J-3J.-GA-.3-2&:-eJ?-?-2eR.-0-.%-, 3,:-28A:A-*J-2-.$$0:A-<A$?-0-o?-0<-2>.-0-.%-, .J-*A.-GA-KA<-(R?-i3?-<%-28A/-3J.0<-2!/-0:R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
[124.4] 2.3.1.1.1.2. Logical reasonings
2.3.1.1.1.2.1. An extensive refutation of arising from the four possible
extremes
2.3.1.1.1.2.2. A teaching on how it is that the arising in relative reality
is dependent arising
2.3.1.1.1.2.3. An explanation of why it is necessary to analyze
thoroughly with logical reasoning
2.3.1.1.1.2.1. An extensive refutation of arising from
the four possible extremes
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1. The actual refutation of arising from the four possible
extremes
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2. The rebuttal of opposing arguments
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1. The actual refutation of arising from the
four possible extremes
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.1. The assertions that there is no arising
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2. An extensive explanation of the reasonings that
refute arising from the four possible extremes
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.3. The conclusion to draw from this refutation:
phenomena have no inherent nature
31
32
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
.J-*A.-.J-=?-:L%-3A/-$8/-.$-=?-v-$-=-8A$,
$*A-$-=?-G%-3-;A/-o-3J.-0<-/A-$-=-;R.,, 8 !#
3*3-*A.-2&:A-=%-$A-.%-0R-2o.-.R/-.3-.-3*3-0-*A.-.%-, .$-0-+-3?R$?-.0J-2./-IA?-2!/-0-/A-!/-mR2-+-3*3-0-*A.-.%-, ,-3-/A-2.J/-0$*A?-&<-3*3-0-*A.-.-:(.-0-=?-*J-3J.-.-3*3-0-*A.-<A$?-0:A-=3/?-2!/-0?, 3*3-*A.-$8/-i3?-2!/-0<-a-2:R, .J-v<-.3-2&:28A-0R-.%-0R<-2eR.-/?-.J-<A$?-0?-12-0-/A-2.$-=?-*J-2-3A/-+J, .J-*A..J-=?-:L%-3A/-KA<, ,8J?-.%-, $8/-=?-3A/-+J, <%-=?-3A-:L%-/$8/-.$-=?-v-$-=-8A$-0:A-KA<-.%-, $*A?-!-=?-3A/-+J, <J-<J-/?-3;A/-/-$*A?-!-=?-G%-3-;A/-0:A-KA<-.%-, o-3J.-3A/-+J, o-3J.-0<-/A-$=-;R.-YA.-0:A-KA<-8J?-?R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
33
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.1. The assertions that there is no arising
It does not originate from itself; how could it originate from something
else?
Nor does it arise from self and other together; how could it arise without
a cause? (8ab)
In the above quotation in which the Buddha teaches of the ten types of
equality, the first eight describe the equality of all phenomena from the
perspective of actual and genuine truth; the ninth, by means of the seven
examples of illusions and so forth, describes equality from the perspective
of relative truth; and the tenth describes equality from the perspective of
both the two truths. It is the case that from among these ten, when first,
the equality of no arising is explained using the path of reasoning, the other
nine are easy to describe.
[125.19] Thus, four assertions of no arising are first enunciated and
then proven to be valid with logical reasoning. These assertions are as follows: (1) There is no arising from self, because as it is said, “it does not originate from itself.” (2) There is no arising from other, because if something
does not originate from itself, “how could it originate from something
else?” (3) There is no arising from both, because if something does not arise
from self and other individually, “it does not arise from self and other
together” either. (4) There is no causeless arising, because as it is said, “how
could it” be possible for it to “arise without a cause?”
34
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, 3,:-28A:A-*J-2-.$$-0-=?-,=-<%-$*A?-?-IJ?-5=-.%-,
3,:-.J-.$-.$$-0:A-<A$?-0-o?-0<-2>.-0:R, $*A?-0-=-<%-.%-,
$8/-.%-, $*A?-!-.%-, o-3J.-=?-*J-2-.$$-0-o?-0<-2>.-0-28A=?, .%-0R-=-2.J/-0-$*A?-(<-.-.$$-0-.%-, ?/-:LA/-IA-=3-$8/2!/-0:R, ,.%-0R-=-.R/-.3-0<-<%-=?-*J-2-.$$-0-.%-, ,-~.-.-<%=?-*J-2-.$$-0-.%-, 2!$-0:A-2#-2:R, ,.%-0R-=-<%-=?-*J-2-.R/-3J.0-.%-, <A$?-0-.%-:$=-2:R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
35
[134.15] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2. An extensive explanation of the
reasonings that refute arising from the four possible
extremes
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1. How the division into the Autonomy and
Consequence schools comes about from the refutation of arising from
the four extremes10
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2. An extensive explanation of the reasonings that
refute arising from those extremes
[218.last] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2. An extensive explanation of
the reasonings that refute arising from those extremes
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1. The refutation of arising from self
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2. The refutation of arising from other
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3. The refutation of arising from both
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4. The refutation of causeless arising
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1. The refutation of arising from self
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1. Refuting arising in both of the two truths
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.2. Another way of revealing the faults in the
argument that things arise from themselves
[219] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1. Refuting arising in both
of the two truths
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1. Refuting arising from self in genuine reality
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.2. Refuting arising from self in conventional
reality
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.3. A summary of the refutations
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1. Refuting arising from self in
genuine reality
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1. Arising from self is meaningless
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2. Arising from self is illogical
36
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
.J-/A-.J-=?-:L%-/-;R/-+/-:$:-;%-;R.-3-;A/,, 8 $
P%?-&/-0-.$-o-:V?-%R-2R-$&A$-+-;R.-.J, o-.?-/-:V?-2-3%R/-0<-3A$?=-2:A-2.$-*A.-.-;R.-=, :V?-2:A-.?-/-3%R/-0<-$?=-2:R-8J?9J<, :.A-3A-:,.-0<-2!/-0-/A, ;R.-0:A-M-$-.J-/A-(R?-&/, ?-2R/-<%-$A2.$-*A.-.-;R.-0:A-M-$-.J-=?-:L%-2-!J-*J-2-3-;A/-0<-,=, .J-v<-3A/0<-.J-=?-.J-:L%-/-;R/-+/-/3-.$R?-0-z$-0-:$:-;%-!J-$&A$-G%-;R.0-3-;A/-0:A-KA<-+J, ;R.-0-/A-}<-/?-,R2-9A/-0:A-KA<, 3%R/-$?=-IA-230-28A/-/R,,
$*A?-0-=-.3-2&:-2-.%-, :,.-0-:$R.-0:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
*J?-0<-I<-0-a<-;%-*J-2<-<A$?-0:%-3-;A/-*A., 8 %
;%-:.A-v<-2eR.-.J, ?-2R/-.-P2-9A/-=?-?-2R/-.-P2-9A/-*J-2<-,=, ?2R/-=-;R.-0:A-M-$-=?-a<-M-$-*J-2:A-KA<, g$?-#?-]%?, H2-0-3J./-?-2R/-=-;R.-0:A-M-$-=?-a<-M-$-*J-/, ?-M$-m?-$&A$-;A/-0-2.,
:.R.-/, *J?-0<-I<-0:A-?-2R/-a<-;%-:.J2?-/?-*J-2<-<A$?-0:%-3;A/-0-*A.-.J, .J:A-:,.-0-/A,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
37
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1. Arising from self is meaningless
If it arose from itself, arising would be meaningless. (8c)
The Samkhyas11 claim that cause and result exist as one essence. At the time
of the cause, the result exists in a latent state, and later, during the result’s
own phase, it becomes manifest, they say.
This view is untenable because a sprout does not arise from a sprout that
exists in the entity of the seed, for if it did, “arising” would be meaningless
and purposeless. There would not be a single reason why the sprout should
have to arise at that point, because it would already exist. It is for example as with a vase that is clearly and manifestly present, and therefore has
no need to arise.
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2. Arising from self is illogical
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1. The assertion
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.2. The logical proof
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1. The assertion
For something that has already arisen to arise again would be illogical. (8d)
It can also be expressed in the following way: It would absurdly follow that
an already existent seed would arise from an already existent seed, because
a sprout would arise again from a sprout that existed in the seed. The
Samkhyas might accept the reason but not the pervasion,12 but if so, then
if the sprout arises again from a sprout that exists in the seed, that would
exclude the possibility that the seed and the sprout are the same substance.
If one accepts that, then still, it is illogical that a previously arisen seed
should be planted and arise again. The logical proof of this statement will
now be explained.
38
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, P$?-0-.%-:$=-&A%-,$-3J.-.-:I<-2-.%-, 35/-*A.-,..-3A-..-2g$?-/-3A-:,.-0-.%-, ]R-=-$%-3A-$%-35%?-0<-:I<-2:R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
39
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.2. The logical proof
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1. Arising from self is contrary to what is
renowned in the world and would be endless
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2. Analysis of whether the characteristics
of a cause and of its result are different or not shows arising from self
to be logically untenable
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.3. If there were arising from self, at any
given time a cause and its result should equally be visible or not visible
40
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
*J?-9A/-a<-;%-*J-2<-;R%?-?-gR$-0<-:I<-/-/A,,
M-$-=-?R$?-i3?-GA-*J-2-:.A<-fJ.-3A-:I<-8A%-,,
?-2R/-YA.-3,<-,$-0<-<2-+-*J-2-*A.-.-:I<,,
)A-v<-.J-*A.-GA?-.J-i3-0<-:)A$-0<-LJ.-0<-:I<,, 9
*J?-9A/-?-2R/-a<-;%-*J-2<-;R%?-?-gR$-0<-:I<-2-.J-v<-YA.-/-/A-(R?&/, M-$-.%-#R%-2-.%-&2?-:(:-2-=-?R$?-:V?-2-KA-3-i3?-GA-*J-2:A$R-{2?-:.A<-$+/-fJ.-0<-3A-:I<-2<-,=, ?-2R/-=?-?-2R/-?R$?-*J-2$/?-{2?-}-3-}-3-3-:$$?-0<-KA-3-KA-3-3A-*J-=, \R-2<-.-?-2R/-<%<%-*J-2-2!$-/?-M-$-*J:R-8J-/:%-3A-<A$?-0:A-KA<-+J, .J-v<-/-<%-*J-=$J$?-3J.-0?-/3-;%-?-2R/-*A.-=?-?-2R/-3A-*J-2<-3A-:I<-2:A-KA<,
$8/-;%-?-2R/-YA.-0-!J-:#R<-2-!R%-0:A-3,<-,$-0:A-2<-<2-+-*J-2-*A..-:I<-+J, <%-=?-*J-/-<%-*J-2:A-nJ/-/3-;%-3-5%-2-3J.-&A%-$J$?-3J.0?-?-2R/-:$$?-3A-YA.-0:A-KA<, .J-3-H2-!J, M-$:A-z/-&A$-LJ.-nJ/-(.%-.?-?R$?-GA?-o-?-2R/-:I<-2<-LJ.-&A%-:V?-2-M-$-*J.-0<-LJ.-=,
:V?-2-M-$-;%-<%-2*J.-0<-LJ.-0R-.%-z/-&A$-3A-$/?-0?-o-.J?-?2R/-.J-:)A$-0<-LJ.-&A%-:V?-2-M-$-:L%-2?-?-2R/-YA.-3,<-,$-0:A*J?-0-3J.-.R, ,.J-v<-/:%-?-M$-m?-$8/-3A/-0?-2.$-*J-P2-2R-8J-/,
)A-v<-?-2R/-IA-2.$-*A.-.-I<-0:A-M-$-.J-*A.-GA?-<%-$A-2.$-*A.-GA-?2R/-.J-i3-0<-:)A$-0<-LJ.-0<-:I<-+J-3A-:I<-2<-,=, ?-M$-m?$8/-3-;A/-0:A-KA<, ?-2R/-<%-$A-2.$-*A.-28A/-/R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
41
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1. Arising from self is contrary to
what is renowned in the world and would be endless
If it were, as you think, that something already arisen should arise again,
Then the sprout and what follows it would never have a chance to arise,
And the seed would continue to arise again and again until the end of
existence.
How could something destroy its very self when it comes into existence? (9)
[220] If it were possible, as you Samkhyas think, that a seed that has already
arisen should arise again, then in that situation it would follow that the
sprout, stem, plant, and so forth—all the results that follow the seed—
would never have a chance to arise themselves, because from the seed, the
seed itself would arise, over and over, and with the earlier instances of arising never ending, the later instances could not occur. “The seed will just
stop arising all of a sudden, and then the sprout will arise,” you may claim,
but that would be illogical, because with no obstacles to its arising from
itself, the seed would never stop arising from itself.
Furthermore, the seed would continue to arise again and again until the
end of existence, in other words, until samsara is empty, because if something arises from itself, the conditions necessary for it to arise are always
complete, and thus, without any obstacle to prevent it from arising, it
would be impossible for the seed to stop arising.
You might say: “There is no pervasion,13 because the cooperative conditions for the arising of the sprout, like water, time, and so forth, transform the actual cause, the seed, and produce the result, the sprout.
Furthermore, the sprout does not exist at the same time as that which produces it, and therefore, the sprout destroys the seed and comes into being.14
Therefore, the supposed illogicality of the seed arising until the end of existence in fact does not exist, and at the same time, since the seed and sprout
are not different substances, arising from self is established.”
How could it be, though, that the sprout—of the same entity of the
seed—could destroy that seed whose very essence is none other than its
own? It could not do so, because the seed and the sprout are not different
substances. It is just as the seed is with its own nature.
42
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
LJ.-o-?-2R/-IA-=?-,-..-M-$:A-.LA2?-.%-/A,,
#-.R$-<R-/?-(A/-0:A-,-..-HR.-=-3J.-0<-:I<,,
$=-+J-}<-IA-2.$-$A-.%R?-0R-2?=-/?-.J-=?-$8/,,
%R-2R<-:I<-/-.J-5K-.J-;A-.J-*A.-)A-v<-:I<,, 10
?-M$-<%-28A/-$&A$-/-M-$-*J.-0<-LJ.-0:A-o-?-2R/-IA-.LA2?-?R$?(R?-s-=?-,-..-0<-M-$:A-.LA2?-.%-/A-#-.R$-<R-/?-(A/-0:A-,-..-0P%?-&/-HR.-=-3J.-0<-:I<-2<-,=, ?-M$-2.$-$&A$-$A-m?-;A/-0:AKA<, ?-M$-$A-.LA2?-?R$?-,-..-3A/-0<-:.R.-/, ?-2R/-IA-.LA2??R$?-3-3,R%-2-v<-M$-.LA2?-?R$?-G%-3,R%-3A-<%-2<-:I<-2?-.Jv:%-3-;A/-0:A-KA<, ?-2R/-IA-.LA2?-?R$?-=?-M-$:A-.LA2?-?R$?$8/-.-<A$?-+J, |R$-*:A-?-2R/-=?-(->A%-$A-M-$-$8/-28A/-/R, ,;%P%?-&/-/-<J, 3-H2-!J, ?-2R/-IA-.LA2?-?R$?-2+%-/?-M$-?R$?-GA.LA2?-?R$?-,R2-0:A-KA<-8J-/, ?-M$-.J:A-m?-$&A$-0-!J-,-3A-..-0-.J*A.-.-)A-v<-:I<-2<-,=, $=-+J-}<-?-2R/-IA-.LA2?-?R$?-GA-2.$-$A.%R?-0R-2?=-/?-.J-=?-$8/-M-$:A-.LA2?-?R$?-GA-%R-2R<-:I<-/-.J-5K?-2R/-IA-%R-2R<-:$=-2:A-KA<, LJ-V$-0?-?-M$-$A-.LA2?-?R$?-GA-;R/+/-,-..-0-43-IA?-m?-$&A$-0-3A-:.R<-2?-H2-0-3J.-.R-8J-/, ?-M$-$A.LA2?-?R$?-=?-$8/-0:A-m?-3A-<A$?-+J, ;R/-+/-.LA2?-?R$?-329%-2<-.J:A-m?-:6B/-0-<A$?-0-3-;A/-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
43
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2. Analysis of whether the
characteristics of a cause and of its result are different
or not shows arising from self to be logically untenable
According to your tradition, the sprout could never have
Shape, color, taste, potency, or ripening different from those of its cause,
the seed.
If what was there earlier disappears and changes into something else,
How could the earlier one become the later one? You say they are both the
same thing! (10)
[221] If the seed and the sprout were one in nature, then in your Samkhya
tradition the sprout could never have a shape, color, taste, potency, or
ripening that was different from any of these five qualities of the seed that
produced the sprout. The reason for this is that the seed and the sprout
are, according to you, one substance with one identity. If you agree with
the statement that the seed’s and sprout’s shape and so forth are not different, then just as we do not see the seed’s shape and so forth, so we should
also not see the sprout’s shape and so forth. Since it is not like that, however, it is logical that the sprout’s shape and so forth are different from the
seed’s shape and so forth, just as a banana tree’s sprout is different from a
garlic seed.
The Samkhyas may counter with the following argument: “There is no
pervasion, because the sprout gains its shape and other qualities after the
seed’s shape and other qualities are abandoned.” If the seed and sprout are
the same substance, meaning that they are not different things, however,
how could the earlier one become the later one? For if the seed’s shape and
so forth, which existed earlier, disappeared and changed into something
else, namely the sprout’s shape and so forth, at that time what existed
would be the opposite of the entity of the seed.
The Vaisheshikas15 might assert, “Just because the seed’s and sprout’s
shapes and other qualities are different does not mean that they cannot be
the same substance, and therefore there is no pervasion.” However, it is
illogical to posit the existence of such a substance that would be different
from the seed’s and sprout’s shapes and other qualities, because it would
be illogical for that substance to be perceivable while its qualities of shape
and so forth were not.
44
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
$=-+J-HR.-GA-?-2R/-M-$-:.A-$8/-3-;A/-/,,
?-2R/-28A/-.-M-$-8J?-L-.J-$9%-3J.-0:3,,
;%-/-.J-.$-$&A$-0?-)A-v<-M-$-:.A-28A/-.,,
.J-;%-$9%-.-;R.-:I<-.J-KA<-:.A-/A-#?-3A-]%-,, 11
$=-+J-HR.-GA-?-2R/-=?-M-$-2.$-*J-:.R.-0:A-{2?-:.A<-$8/-3-;A/-/(R?-&/, M-$:A-$/?-{2?-/-?-2R/-28A/-.-M-$-8J?-L-2-.J:A-%R-2R:%29%-.-3J.-0:3, ;%-/-?-M$-.J-.$-$&A$-0?-)A-v<-M-$-29%-.-;R.-0:.A-28A/-.-?-2R/-IA-%R-2R-.J-;%-29%-.-;R.-0<-:I<-2<-,=, $&A$-=29%-3-29%-$A-(-$*A?-:$=-2-.J:A-KA<, *J?-0-:.A-3A-:.R.-0-.$-$A?-?M$-$&A$-0-:.A-/A-#?-3A-]%-%R-,,
$*A?-0-/A,
$%-KA<-o-8A$-/-;%-.J-;A-:V?-2-3,R%-2:A-KA<,,
.J-.$-$&A$-0-;A/-8J?-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-G%-#?-3A-=J/,, 12 !#
.J?-/-,<-0:A-.J-*A.-:5S=-2<-:.R.-0-P%?-&/-IA-=$?-=-2.$-*J-2!$/?-.J-3A-:.R.-0:A-:)A$-gJ/-IA-%R<-;%-2.$-*J-3A-:,.-0<-/A-o-:V?-.J.$-$&A$-0-;A/-&J?-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-G%-#?-3A-=J/-+J, $%-$A-KA<-/-o-8A$/-;%-.J:A-:V?-2-3,R%-2:A-KA<, .J-=?-$8/-.-/-o-28A/-.-:V?-2-;%3A-3,R%-2<-,=, .J-.$-$&A$-0-*A.-GA-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
45
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.3. If there were arising from self,
at any given time a cause and its result should equally be
visible or not visible
And if your seed is not different from the sprout we have here,
Then just as we do not see the seed, so we should not see the sprout!
Alternatively, since the two are the same, just as we see the sprout, so we
should see the seed.
Therefore, we do not assert arising from self. (11)
At this time that you assert arising from self in the context of the sprout
arising from the seed, if these two are not different from each other, then
at the time of the sprout, just as we do not see the seed, so we should not
see the sprout! [222] Alternatively, since the two are the same, just as we
see the sprout, so we should see the seed.
For one thing to have both perceptible and imperceptible aspects would
be contradictory, and therefore those who do not assert such a flawed
hypothesis do not claim that seed and sprout are one thing.
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.2. Refuting arising from self in
conventional reality
Since we all see the result even though the cause has ceased,
Even the world does not claim cause and result to be one. (12ab)
Having refuted the claim of arising from self as made by the Samkhyas, a
tradition desiring to search for the precise nature of liberation, we can also
see that arising from self is not logically tenable from the perspective of the
ordinary people in the world who have no such desire for liberation. [223]
The reason for this is that since everyone in the world sees the result even
though its cause has ceased, no one claims that a cause and its result are
one and the same. If it were otherwise, then just as the cause is imperceptible so the result should be as well, because they would be one and the
same thing.
46
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
.J-KA<-.%R?-0R-2.$-=?-:L%-8J?-<2-+-2g$?-0-:.A,,
.J-*A.-.%-/A-:)A$-gJ/-.-;%-<A$?-0-3-;A/-/R,, 12 $%
P%?-&/-IA?-.%R?-0R-i3?-2.$-=?-:L%-8J?-<2-+-2g$?-0-:.A-/A-.R/.3-2.J/-0:A-.J-*A.-.%-/A-:)A$-gJ/-!/-mR2-2.J/-0:A-.2%-.-L?-G%<A$?-0-3-;A/-/R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
2.$-=?-*J-2<-:.R.-/-2*J.-0<-L-.%-*J.-LJ.-.%-,,
=?-.%-LJ.-0-0R-;%-$&A$-*A.-:I<-/-.J-.$-/A,,
$&A$-*A.-3-;A/-0?-/-2.$-=?-*J-2<-#?-]%-2<,,
L-3A/-o-(J<-2>.-0:A-*J?-0<-,=-2<-:I<-KA<-<R,, 13
:V?-2-.J-.$-/A-2.$-=?-*J-2<-:.R.-/-3A-<A$?-+J, 2*J.-0<-L-2-.%*J.-0<-LJ.-0-.%-=?-.%-LJ.-0-0R-;%-$&A$-*A.-.-:I<-2-#R-/:A-KA<, 3A<A$?-0-3-;A/-0<-<A$?-0-.J-v<-/-1-2-.%-3J-.%-2.->A%-?R$?-$&A$-0*A.-.-,=-2-=?, .J-v<-3-;A/-0?-/-2.J/-$*A?-GA-.R/-:O=-3J.-=:)$-/-.%R?-0R-i3?-2.$-=?-*J-2<-#?-]%-2<-L-2-3-;A/-+J, o-(J<2>.-0:A-*J?-0<-,=-2<-:I<-2:A-KA<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
47
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.3. A summary of the refutations
Therefore, the utter fabrication that things arise from themselves
Is illogical in terms of both the precise nature and the way things appear
in the world. (12cd)
The Samkhyas believe that things arise from themselves, but this utter fabrication is illogical from the perspective of genuine reality’s precise nature
and from the perspective of the relative reality of the world.
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1.2. Another way of revealing the faults in
the argument that things arise from themselves
To assert arising from self is to claim
That producer and produced are one, and that actor and object of action
are one.
Since these things are not the same as each other, and because of all the
other faults that have been extensively explained,
We do not assert arising from self. (13)
It is illogical to assert that results arise from themselves, because if that were
the case then producer and produced, and actor and object of action would
most definitely be one and the same thing. If that would be logical, then
father and son, fire and firewood, and so forth, would be one and the same
thing. Since that is not the case, and because of all the other faults that have
been extensively explained, if one wants to enter the actuality of the two
truths in an unconfused way, one should not assert arising from self.
48
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-.$$-0-.%R?-.%-, 8<-=?-i3-<A$-0:A-=$?-.$$-0:R, ,.%0R-=, KR$?-}-3-2eR.-0-.%-, .J-.$$-0:R, $*A?-0-=, $8/-=?-*J-22.J/-0-$*A?-!<-.$$-0-.%-, 2!$-0?-P2-0:A-.R/-.%-, 2!$-0-=lR.-0-%%-2:R, ,.%-0R-=, $8/-=?-*J-2-.J-#R-/<-.$$-0-.%-, ,-~.-..$$-0:R, ,.%-0R-=, o-:V?-.R/-$8/-;A/-/-@-&%-,=-2-2eR., }-KA.?-3*3-=-o-:V?-.R/-$8/-3A-YA.-0<-2!/, 3,:-28A<-2g$?-+J:V?-2-o-=-2vR?-0:A-.?-3A-YA.-0:R, ,.%-0R-=, @-&%-,=-2-.%R?-.%-,
*J?-%R%-$A-=/-.$$-0:R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
49
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2. The refutation of arising from other
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1. The main refutation
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.2. An ancillary refutation of the mind-only
tradition
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1. The main refutation
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.1. A presentation of the opponents’ view16
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2. The refutation of the opponents’ view
[226.7] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2. The refutation of the
opponents’ view
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1. The refutation of arising from other in
both of the two truths
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2. The point established by these refutations
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3. The rebuttal of opposing arguments
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1. The refutation of arising from other
in both of the two truths
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1. The refutation of arising from other in the
precise nature of reality
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2. The refutation of arising from other in
conventional reality
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1. The refutation of arising from
other in the precise nature of reality
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.1. The absurd consequences of cause and
result being different objects
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2. Why cause and result occurring either
sequentially or simultaneously cannot possibly be different objects
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.3. Investigating the four possibilities, it is
impossible to find a time when a result would depend upon a cause
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.1. The absurd consequences of cause
and result being different objects
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1. The absurd consequences themselves
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2. A rebuttal of opposing arguments
50
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
$8/-=-2gJ/-/?-$=-+J-$8/-8A$-:L%-2<-:I<-/-/A,,
:R-/-3J-tJ-=?-G%-3/-0-:,$-0R-:L%-:I<-8A%-,,
,3?-&.-=?-G%-,3?-&.-*J-2<-:I<-+J-$%-$A-KA<,,
*J.-0<-LJ.-0-3-;A/-3-=?-=-;%-$8/-*A.-35%?,, 14
:.A<-$8/-=?-*J-2-:,.-0-3-;A/-+J, 2&R3-w/-:.?-GA?-(R?-3%R/-0-=?R$?-0<-nJ/-28A-=?-*J?-8J?-$?%?-0-/A-.$R?-0:A-.2%-$A?-S%-.R/-,~.-43-.-$?%?-0-;A/-IA, 2.J/-0-$*A?-!<-<%-$A-35/-*A.-GA?-P20:A-(R?-YA.-0-3A/-/-.J-v-2:A-o-nJ/-.%R?-0R-2-:$:-;%-$<-YA.-0:A-KA<,
2&R3-w/-:.?-GA?-%J?-0<-$8/-=?-*J-2<-$?%?-0-;%-3-;A/-+J, gJ/&A%-:VJ=-:L%-43-;A/-0:A-KA<, #J-0-$8/-.$-<%-35/-.-P2-0:A-nJ/28A-:.R.-/?-.J-$8/-*J<-5-2-/A-2&R3-w/-:.?-GA-.$R%?-0-3A/-+J-=%<A$?-.%-:$=-2:A-KA<, o-$8/-=-2gJ/-/?-$=-+J-:V?-2-$8/-8A$:L%-2<-:I<-/-/A, :R-/-3J-tJ-=?-G%-3/-0-:,$-0R-:L%-:I<-8A%-,
8J?-.J<-,=, $8/-*A.-;A/-0:A-KA<, :.R.-/?-0:%-3A/-+J, .J-v<-3,R%2?-2?=-2:A-KA<-<R, ,o-.%-o-3A/-,3?-&.-=?-G%-.J-3,/-IA-:V?-2.%-:V?-2-3A/-0-,3?-&.-*J-2<-:I<-+J, $%-$A-KA<-?-=:A-M-$:A-*J.0<-LJ.-0-3A/-0-3J-.%-?R=-2-?R$?-3-=?-0-=:%-?-=:A-M-$-=?-$8/*A.-.-35%?-0:A-KA<, ?-=:A-M-$-=?-?-=:A-?-2R/-$8/-;A/-0-28A/-/R,
,:.R.-.R-8J-/, 3%R/-?3-IA?-2?=-2?-$-=-:P2,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
51
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1. The absurd consequences
themselves
If a thing arose from something different from itself,
Then pitch darkness would arise from a fire’s flames.
Everything would arise from everything, and why is that?
Because all causes and non-causes would be equally different from
the result. (14)
Here, from the perspective of the Middle Way, arising from other is logically untenable. The reason for this is that when, in the Abhidharma and
other teachings, the Transcendent Conqueror stated that things arise from
the four conditions,17 he did so out of necessity, as an expression of the
merely conventional and provisional meaning. Since no characteristics can
ever possibly establish any phenomenon as truly existent in either genuine
or conventional reality, how could any of the entities of these causes and
conditions possibly exist? The Transcendent Conqueror did not teach
“arising from other” as an expression of the definitive meaning, because he
taught that the appearance of arising is merely dependent arising. The other
Buddhist schools that claim that the four conditions’ existence is established by their own specific characteristics, and on the basis of that go on
to assert arising from other, do not express the Transcendent Conqueror’s
intention, because such assertions are contradicted both by the Buddha’s
own statements and by logical reasoning.
[227] If a thing arose from something different from itself, the consequence would be that pitch darkness would arise from a fire’s flames,
because these two are different things. Furthermore, one cannot assert that
this occurs, because our direct experience dispels both the original assertion and its consequences.
[227.9] Everything—all results that are concordant with specific
causes, as well as things that are not—would arise from everything—all
causes of those specific results, as well as things that are not. Why is that?
The reason is that, for example, things that are not the producers of a rice
sprout, like fire, coal, and so on, would be equally different from a rice
sprout, and these all would be just as different from the rice sprout as a rice
seed would be. If someone should say, “I accept this!,” how could they? It
is refuted by our own direct experience, so how could it be possible?
52
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, *J?-%R%-$A-=/-.%-, .J-.$$-0:R,
.%-0R-/A,
<2-+-L-2<-/?-0-.J-KA<-:V?-2<-%J?-2eR.-&A%-,,
$%-8A$-.J-*J.-/?-0-.J-/A-$8/-/:%-o-;A/-=,,
o.-$&A$-$+R$?-.%-*J.-0<-LJ.-=?-*J-2-.J-;A-KA<,,
?-=:A-M-$-/?-=-?R$?-=?-.J-v-3A/-8J-/,, 15
o-:V?-$8/-;A/-G%-,3?-&.-=?-,3?-&.-3A-:L%-!J, o-:V?-%J?-03,R%-2:A-KA<, o-$%-$A?-<2-+-:V?-2-2*J.-0<-L-2<-/?-0-.J:A-KA<.J?-.J-2*J.-0-/A-.J:A-:V?-2<-%J?-0<-2eR.-&A%-, :V?-2-$%-8A$-.J2*J.-0<-/?-0-.J-/A-:V?-2-=?-$8/-;A/-/-;%-o-;A/-=, .J?-/-$8/H.-0<-&/-#R-/?-o-.%-:V?-2<-:I<-IA, $8/-.-I<-0-,A-43-o<29%-/?-$8/-0:A-,A-wR$-$A?-:V?-2-,3?-&.-2*J.-0<-/A-3-5?->A%-,
.J-;%-?-=:A-M$-v<-o.-$&A$-$+R$?-.%-:V?-2-{.-&A$-*J.-0<-LJ.-0{.-&A$-2<-3-(R.-0:A-o-=?-*J-2-.J:A-KA<-?-=:A-M-$-?R$?-/?-GA-?-2R/?R$?-=?-:L%-2-.J-v<-3-;A/-/R-8J-/,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
53
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2. A rebuttal of opposing
arguments
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2.1. An attempt to answer the Middle
Way’s refutation of arising from other
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2.2. The Middle Way’s rebuttal of that
answer
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2.1. An attempt to answer the
Middle Way’s refutation of arising from other
“The cause has the ability to produce the result, so its result is certain.
And that which has the ability to produce the result is the cause, even
though it is different from the result.
The result is in the same continuum as its cause and arises from its
producer, which immediately precedes it.
Therefore, rice sprouts do not arise from barley seeds,” you say. (15)
You, the opponent of the Middle Way, say: “A cause and its result are different from each other, but that does not mean that everything arises from
everything else, because we can see that the relationships between causes
and their own specific results are definite. Whatever cause it is, it has the
ability to produce its own specific result, and therefore it does indeed produce that result—it is therefore certain as to what its result will be. And,
that thing that has the ability to produce that result is indeed the cause,
even though it is different from the result.
“Therefore, only specific different things can be in a cause-result relationship with each other; we do not claim that in general anything can be
a cause that can in general produce everything that is in any way different
from itself. [228] In the case of the rice sprout, for example, the cause and
the result are in the same continuum and the instant of the result arises
from the instant of the cause that immediately precedes it, without anything coming in between. Therefore, rice sprouts do not arise from barley
seeds, and the same logic can be applied in other cases as well.”
54
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
)A-v<-/?-.%-$J-?<-.%-/A-!J%->-!-=-?R$?,,
?-=:A-M-$:A-*J.-0<-LJ.-0<-:.R.-3A/-/?-w/-3A/,,
o.-$&A$-#R%?-?-$+R$?-3A/-:S-2-3-;A/-*A.-.J-28A/,,
?-=:A-?-2R/-;%-/A-.J-;A-3A/-+J-$8/-*A.-KA<,, 16
?-=:A-?-2R/-;%-/A-?-=:A-M-$-.J:A-*J.-LJ.-3-;A/-0-.%-, /?-w/-3-;A/-0.%-, o.-$&A$-+-$+R$?-0-3-;A/-0-.%-, <A$?-:S-3A/-0<-:I<-+J, ?=:A-M-$-=?-$8/-*A.-;A/-0:A-KA<, )A-v<-/?-.%-0E:A-$J-?<-.%-/A-3J+R$-!J%->-!-=-?R$?-0-i3?-?-=:A-M-$-*J.-0<-LJ.-0<-:.R.-0-3A/-+J,
?-=:A-M-$-2*J.-0:A-/?-w/-3A/-0-.%-, o.-$&A$-#R%?-?-$+R$?-0-3A/0-.%-, <A$?-:S-2-3-;A/-0-*A.-GA-KA<-+J, $8/-;A/-0:A-KA<-5=-.J-)A-v2-.J-28A/-/R,,
$*A?-0-=-}-KA-=-$8/-3A-YA.-0?-$8/-*J-3A-:,.-0-.%-, .?-3*3-=-*J2-3A-YA.-0?-$8/-*J-3A-:,.-0:R, ,.%-0R-=-.%R?-.%-, *J?-%R%-$A-.0J.$$-0:R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
55
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.2.2. The Middle Way’s rebuttal
of that answer
However, just as a barley seed, a flower stamen, and an evergreen tree
Are not posited to be the causes of a rice sprout, do not have the potential
to produce one,
Are not in the same continuum as a rice sprout, and are not in the same
family,
So too does the rice seed lack these four qualities, because it would be just
as different from a rice sprout as they are. (16)
[229.1] In your system, a rice seed would also not be the cause of a rice
sprout, would not have the potential to produce a rice sprout, would not
be in the same continuum as a rice sprout, and would not be in the same
family as the rice sprout, because it and the rice sprout would be different
things! It would be just like the way that a barley seed, flower stamen, evergreen tree, and so forth are not posited as the producers of the rice sprout
because, since they are different from the rice sprout, they do not have the
potential to produce it, are not in the same continuum as it, and are not
in the same family. The way that the rice seed is different from the rice
sprout and the way that these other things are different from the rice sprout
would be precisely the same.
[232.2] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2. Why cause and result
occurring either sequentially or simultaneously cannot
possibly be different objects
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1. Entities existing sequentially cannot
be different from each other, so arising from other in that situation is
untenable
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.2. Entities existing simultaneously cannot
arise from each other, so arising from other in that situation is untenable
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1. Entities existing sequentially
cannot be different from each other, so arising from
other in that situation is untenable
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.1. The actual explanation of this point
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2. The rebuttal of an attempt to get
around this explanation with an example
56
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
M-$-?-2R/-.%-/A-.?-3*3-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J,,
$8/-*A.-3J.-0<-?-2R/-$8/-0-*A.-.-$-=-:I<,,
.J?-/-M-$-?-2R/-=?-*J-:P2-0<-:I<-3A/-0?,,
$8/-=?-*J-2-;A/-8J?-L-2:A-KR$?-:.A-$+%-2<-LR?,, 17
M-$-?-2R/-.%-/A-$&A$-&<-.?-3*3-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, ?-2R/-3-:I<-2<M-$-3J.-0:A-KA<, ?-2R/-.J-5K-$8/-M-$-*A.-3J.-0<-?-2R/-M-$-=?-$8/0-*A.-.-$-=-:I<-+J, $8/-.%-$8/-.-I<-0-.J<-3J.-0:A-KA<, .J?-/-M$-?-2R/-.R/-$8/-=?-*J-2-:P2-0<-:I<-2-3A/-0?-.J:A-KA<-.%R?-0R$8/-=?-*J-2-;A/-&J?-L-2:A-KR$?-/A-2+%-2<-LR?->A$-$R,
$*A?-0-=-*J?-%R%-$A-.0J-.%-, .J-.$$-0:R,
.%-0R-/A,
)A-v<-Y%-$A-3.:-$*A?-3,R-2-.%-/A-.3:-2-.$,
.?-3*3-3-;A/-0<-/A-3A/-0<-3,R%-2-.J-28A/-.,,
2*J.-0<-L-.%-*J.-LJ.-.$-$A-*J-:$$-:I<-8J-/,, 18 !#$
?-M$-.?-3*3-.-3J.-.R-8J?-0-.J-3A-<A$?-+J, 2*J.-0<-L-2-:V?-2-.%*J.-0<-LJ.-0-o-.$-$A-*J-2-.%-:$$-0-.?-3*3-0<-:I<-+J, $%-$A-5K-?2R/-:$$?-5K-M-$-*J-2:A-KA<, ?-M$-.?-3*3-$8/-.-P2-!J, )A-v<-Y%$A-3.:A-3$R-3)$-$*A?-3,R-2-.%-/A-.3:-2-.$-$&A$-&<-.?-3*3-0-3;A/-0-/A-3-;A/-0<-3,R%-2:A-KA<-.J-28A/-.-:.A<-;%->J?-0<-L:R-8J-/,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
57
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.1. The actual explanation of this
point
The sprout and the seed do not exist at the same time,
So how can the seed be different from the sprout if there is nothing there to
be different from?
Therefore, there is no arising of a sprout from a seed,
So please abandon this thesis that things arise from other things that are
different from themselves. (17)
[232.14] The seed and the sprout do not exist simultaneously, because
until the seed has transformed, the sprout does not exist. During that time
before the seed’s transformation, how could the seed be different from the
sprout if the sprout itself does not exist for the seed to be different from?
There are not two things existent to be different from each other. Therefore, the sprout does not arise from a seed that is an object different from
itself, so please abandon the thesis that things arise from other things that
are different from themselves.
[233.13] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2. The rebuttal of an
attempt to get around this explanation with an example
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1. The example that is offered
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.2. The rebuttal of that example
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1. The example that is offered
“But just as we can see that
The two arms of a scale move up and down simultaneously,
So it is with the arising of the product and the cessation of the producer—
they are simultaneous,” you say. (18a-c)
You say, “It is illogical to claim that the seed and sprout do not exist simultaneously, because the produced result’s arising and the producing cause’s
cessation are in fact simultaneous. This is the case because at whatever time
the seed ceases, at that same time the sprout arises. The seed and sprout
exist simultaneously as different entities because they are just like the
higher and lower arms of a scale moving up and down at the same time.”
58
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-.0J-.R/-3A-35%?-0:A-o-35/-.%-, .J:A-=/-.$$-0:R, ,.%-0R=-2!/-0-.%-, 2>.-0:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
$=-+J-$&A$-5K-;A/-/-:.A<-.?-$&A$-3J.-.J-;R.-3A/, 18 %
$=-+J-Y%-$A-.0J?-o-:V?-*J-:)A$-.?-3*3-0<-gR$?-0-3A-<A$?-+J, .J$*A?-3A-35%?-0:A-KA<-+J, .0J-Y%-3.:A-3,R-.3/-.?-$&A$-&<-IA-5K-LJ.0-;A/-/-;%-:.A<-.R/-o-:V?-GA-*J-:$$-.?-$&A$-0-3J.-0:A-KA<-.0J-.J?.R/-.J-;R.-&J?-=/-:.J2?-LJ.-0-/A-29%-0R-3-;A/-/R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
59
[234] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.2. The rebuttal of that
example
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.2.1. The reason why the situation in
the example is different from the actual situation being examined
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.2.2. The rebuttal of an attempt to
answer the reason just given
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.2.1. The reason why the
situation in the example is different from the actual
situation being examined
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.2.1.1. A brief description of this
reason
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.2.1.2. A more extensive explanation
of the reason
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.2.1.1. A brief description of
this reason
If cause and result both existed at the same time, this example would be
correct, but since they do not exist at the same time, the example does
not fit. (18d)
It is not logically possible for the example of the scale to bring about an
understanding that a result’s arising and a cause’s cessation occur simultaneously. The reason for this is that the situation of the scale and the situation of cause and result are not the same, for whereas the higher and lower
arms of a scale both exist at the same time, the respective arising and cessation of a result and its cause do not. Therefore, the answer in which you
make use of this example is not a very good one.
60
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
$=-+J-*J-28A/-0-.J-*J-=-KR$?-0?-;R.-3A/-8A%-,,
:$$-28A/-0-/A-;R.-G%-:)A$-=-KR$?-0<-:.R.-I<-0,,
.J-5K-:.A-/A-)A-v-2<-/-Y%-.%-35%?-0-;A/,, 19 !#$
.R/-o-:V?-GA-*J-:$$-.?-$&A$-0-;R.-0-3A/-&A%-8J?-.?-3*3-;R.-03A/-+J, $=-+J-M-$-*J-28A/-0-.J-/A-*J-2-=-3%R/-.-KR$?-0-3-:R%?-0-;A/0?, ;R.-0-3-;A/-0:A-KA<-.%-, ?-2R/-:$$-28A/-0-/A-.-v<-2-;A/-0?;R.-G%-:)A$-0-=-3%R/-.-KR$?-0<-:.R.-0<-I<-0-.J:A-KA<-+J, :V?-2<3-I<-0-/A-3-*J?-0-;A/-0?-.J-.-v<-3J.-=, o-;R.-0-*A.-.-v<-2-:$$28A/-0-.J-/A-*J-2-=-KR$?-0-;R.-0-3A/-0:A-KA<, .J-v<-/-.J:A-5K-o-:V?-GA*J-:$$-$&A$-&<-:.A-/A-)A-v-2<-/-Y%-3.:A-3,R-.3/-.%-35%?-0-;A/+J, 3A-35%?-0<-,=, Y%-hR-:,J/-0:A-o-:.?-0-=?-:V?-2-Y%-3.:3,R-.3/-$*A?-$&A$-&<-:L%-2-.-v-2:A-.?-$&A$-G%-, o-:V?-GA-*J:$$-$A-L-2-.-v<-.?-3*3-.-YA.-0-3A/-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
61
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.2.1.2. A more extensive
explanation of the reason
When we assert that what is being born is only approaching birth and so
does not yet exist,
And that what is ceasing still exists and is only approaching
disappearance,
How could these be like the arms of a scale? Only one of them exists at a
time. (19a-c)
In the actual situation being examined, the cause’s cessation and the result’s
arising are not simultaneous. The reason for this is that the sprout being
born is only approaching birth, meaning that its birth is still in the future
and so it does not exist now, whereas the seed’s cessation is happening in
the present and so it does exist now—it is still only approaching its disappearance. Therefore, when we assert the situation to be as such, there has
been no transformation into the result, meaning that the result has not
arisen and so it does not exist now. On the other hand, the cause does exist
now—it is in the process of ceasing, rather than being something that is
only approaching birth. Thus, how could the cause’s cessation and the
result’s arising be like the higher and lower arms of a scale? The two situations are not equivalent, because the present simultaneous movement of
the two arms of the scale is in fact the result of the past cause of removing
the measuring weight from one of the scale’s sides, whereas the activity of
the cause’s cessation and the result’s arising cannot possibly occur at the
same time.
62
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
*J-2-:.A-/A-LJ.-0R-3J.-0<-<A$?-0:A-%R-2R:%-3A/,, 19 %
?-M$-$A-(R?-.$-.?-3A-3*3-;%-*J-:$$-$A-L-2-.?-3*3-3R-8J-/, 3A-<%!J, L-2-(R?-=?-,-..-0<-3-P2-0:A-KA<, $8/-;%-M-$-*J-2:A-L-2-:.A/A-LJ.-0R-M-$-3J.-0<-?-2R/-:$$?-0:A-5K-(R?-&/, ;R.-0<-<A$?-0:A-%R2R:%-3-;A/-+J, *J-2:A-L-2-LJ.-0-0R-M-$-/A-3-:R%?-0-;A/-0?-3J.-=, .J3J.-/-gJ/-LJ.-0R-3J.-0<-2gJ/-0-L-2-;%-3J.-0:A-KA<, *J-:$$-$A-L-2-.?3*3-0<-3A-:P2-2R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
63
[235] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.2.2. The rebuttal of an
attempt to answer the reason just given
Furthermore, “birth” in the absence of the one being born makes no sense
at all. (19d)
You might say, “The phenomena of the seed and sprout do not exist
simultaneously, but the activities of their respective cessation and arising do.” That would be illogical, however, because phenomena’s activities do not exist apart from the phenomena themselves. We could also
put it this way: The sprout’s activity of arising—occurring at the same
time as the seed is ceasing, and therefore at the same time that the sprout
that is the actor in this activity of arising does not exist—is an activity
that makes no sense at all, because the sprout that is supposedly doing
the arising is not present! The actor performing the activity is the support for the activity being performed, and if the actor does not exist, the
activity does not exist either. Therefore, the activities of arising and cessation do not occur simultaneously.
64
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
$=-+J-3A$-$A-]R-=-<%-$A-*J.-LJ.-.?-$&A$-0,,
3A$-=-?R$?-.%-z/-&A$-:L%-2-:.->J?-=-?R$?-=?,,
$8/-*A.-;R.-/-;R.-=-:L%-2?-.$R?-0-&A-8A$-;R.,,
&A-!J-.J-3J.-&J-/-:.A-=-*J?-0-2>.-9A/-+R,, 20
LJ-5-?R$?-o-:V?-.?-3*3-:.R.-0-.$-$A-2?3-0-=, ?-M$-$&A$-&<3J.-/-$8/-*A.-3A-:P2-0?-*J-2<-3A-<A$?-=, $%-.-$&A$-&<-;R.-0-.J<$8/-*A.-;R.-0?-*J-2-;R.-0<-:I<-+J, .0J<-/-3A$-$A-i3->J?-.%-, .J.%-z/-&A$-:L%-8A%-35%?-w/-IA-5S<-?R$?-?J3?-L%-,3?-&.-1/-5/.?-3*3-IA-o-:V?-;A/-0-v-2:R, ,3A$-.%-$9$?-.%-5S<-?R$?-z/-&A$:L%-2-i3?-.?-3*3-#R-/<-3A$-$A-i3->J?-2*J.-0-28A/-.-3A$-?R$?.%-?J3?-?R$?-G%-.?-3*3-#R-/<-5S<-?R$?-i3?-GA-nJ/-.-:I<-<R-8J/, $=-+J-:V?-2-3A$-$A-]R-=-<%-$A-*J.-LJ.-<%-.%-.?-$&A$-0:A-3A$-.%$9$?-=-?R$?-.%-, <%-.%-z/-&A$-:L%-2:A-:.->J?-=-?R$?-?J3??J3?-:L%-i3?-3A$-$A-i3-0<->J?-0-=?-$8/-*A.-.-;R.-/-3A$-$A->J?0-.J-;R.-.$R?-+J, 3J.-/-.J-=?-$8/-.-:)R$-+-3J.-0:A-KA<, :.R.-/-:V?2<-P2-0:A-;R.-0-=-;%-:L%-2?-.$R?-0-&A-8A$-;R.-.J-3J.-0<-,=, *J?9A/-0:A-;R.-0<-I<-/-3A$-.%-:.->J?-?R$?-*J.-LJ.-.-.R/-3J.-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
65
[235.19] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.2. Entities existing
simultaneously cannot arise from each other, so arising
from other in that situation is untenable
If the eye-consciousness exists at the same time as what produces it—
The eye and the other conditions, as well as the co-appearing
discrimination that occurs—
Then what need is there for this already existent eye-consciousness to arise
again?
If you say that it does not so exist, the faults in that view have already
been explained. (20)
[236.10] The Particularist School18 and others assert that cause and result
exist simultaneously. According to them, if seed and sprout did not exist
at the same time, there would not be different entities existing, and therefore for something to arise from something different than itself would be
logically impossible. If they did exist simultaneously, however, then since
there would be two different things, arising from other could in fact occur,
as is the case with the eye-consciousness and all its co-appearing and concomitant mental formations, such as feeling and so forth—these are
mutual and simultaneously existent causes and results. Thus, the Particularists’ argument runs as follows: “The eye, form, feeling, and the other
co-appearing factors produce the eye-consciousness that occurs simultaneously with them, and at the same time, this simultaneously occurring
eye-consciousness is a condition for their existence as well.”
If, however, the eye-consciousness existed at the same time and as a different entity from those that produce it—the eye, form, and so forth, as
well as discrimination and the rest of the primary minds and mental formations—and the eye-consciousness would have to so exist, because if it
did not, it could not be posited as being different from its causes, then the
question is, why would this already existent result of the eye-consciousness
need to arise again? The answer is that it would not, because it would be
an existent entity that would have finished arising, and thus the eye, discrimination, and so forth that existed simultaneously with it would not in
any way fulfill the function of being its producing causes.
66
The Moon of Wisdom
&A-!J-*J-2-3J.-0<-3A-:.R.-0?-3A$-$A-i3->J?-.J-3J.-.R-8J-/, .J-{.-5-2-:.A=-;R.-0-3-;A/-0:A-]R-=?-3A$-=-?R$?-0-i3?-$8/-3-;A/-/R-8J?-*J?-02>.-9A/-+R, ,.J?-/-i3-0-,3?-&.-.-$8/-=?-*J-8J?-0:A-2eR.-L:A-.R/IA?-!R%-0:A-1-43-:2:-8A$-=?-0<-9.-.J, .?-3*3-0-v-2-=-$8/-YA..-($-G%-*J-2-3A-YA., .J-3A-YA.-0?-$*A?-!-3A-YA.-&A%-, }-KA-v-2-$*A?=-*J-2-YA.-.-($-G%-$8/-3A-YA., .J-3A-YA.-0?-$*A?-!-3A-YA.-0:A-KA<,
$?3-0-/A,
*J.-0<-LJ.-0-2*J.-L-$8/-*J.-0-.J-o-;A/-/,,
;R.-0:3-:R/-+J-3J.-.%-$*A-$-$*A?-V=-8A$-*J.-P%-,,
;R.-/-*J.-LJ.-&A-.$R?-3J.-=:%-.J?-/A-&A-8A$-L,,
$*A?-*A.-=-.J?-&A-L-$*A?-.%-V=-=:%-.J?-&A-L,, 21
o-:V?-$*A?-=?-:V?-2-o-=-2vR?-0:A-.?-;R.-0-3A-;A/-/R-8J?-0-/A,
*J.-0<-LJ.-0-$%-$A?-2*J.-L-<%-=?-.R/-$8/-*J.-0<-LJ.-0-.J-o-;A/0<-P%-/-2*J.-L-;R.-0:3, :R/-+J-3J.-0-.%-$*A?-!:3-$*A?-!-.%V=-2-8A$-2*J.-P%-, ,.J-v<-/-;R.-0-*J-3A-<A$?-+J, ;R.-/-*J.-LJ.-&A.$R?-+J-*J?-9A/-a<-;%-*J-2<-3A-<A$?-0:A-KA<, 3J.-0-*J-2<-3A-<A$?-+J,
2*J.-L-3J.-
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
67
Not wanting to assert that there is no arising, some might say, “All right
then, the eye-consciousness does not exist in that way.” This would mean,
however, that the nonexistent eye-consciousness could not be different
from the eye and so forth, and the faults in this view of arising from other
have already been explained.
Thus, in all its possible permutations, the view of “arising from other”
is just an expression of empty sounds devoid of any real meaning, and
nothing more than that. For if cause and result occurred simultaneously,
they could be other, but arising would be impossible, and therefore both
of these together would be impossible; and on the other hand, if cause and
result occurred sequentially, there could be arising, but other would be
impossible, and therefore both of these together would be impossible in
this case as well.
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.1.3. Investigating the four
possibilities, it is impossible to find a time when a result
would depend upon a cause
If a producing cause produces a product different from itself,
Then does that result exist, not exist, both, or neither?
If it exists, why does it need something to produce it? If it does not exist,
what does the producing cause do?
If both, what would the producing cause do? If neither, what would the
producing cause do? (21)
It is taught, “From among the two, cause and result, there is no time when
the result depends upon the cause.” This statement shall now be explained.
The question to ask is: If any given producing cause produces a product different from itself, then does that produced result exist, not exist,
both exist and not exist, or neither exist nor not exist? To consider these
possibilities in turn:
[237.17] (1) It would be illogical for something existent to arise,
because if the result already exists, what function would the producing
cause perform? That which already exists does not need to arise again.
68
The Moon of Wisdom
/:%-*J.-LJ.-.J?-/A-&A-8A$-L-!J-2R%-2:A-G-v<-LJ.-0:A-/?-;=-3A/-0:A-KA<,
,2*J.-L-;R.-3J.-$*A?-*A.-=-:,.-0-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, .J-v<-/-nJ/-.J?-&A8A$-L-!J-KR$?-$*A?-!:A-*J?-0-:)$-0:A-KA<, ;R.-.%-3J.-0:A-%R-2R-$*A?/A-$&A$-=-$&A$-3A-YA.-0?-;R.-3J.-$*A?-!:A-<%-28A/-&/-IA-.%R?-0R-/A3A-YA.-0?-nJ/-IA-/?-;=-3A/-0:A-KA<, 2*J.-L-$*A?-V=-IA-.%R?-0R-*J-3A<A$?-+J, $*A?-V=-.J-=:%-nJ/-.J?-&A-8A$-L-!J-;R.-3J.-$*A?-!-%%?-0:A:V?-2-;R.-0-3-;A/-0:A-KA<, .$$-L-;R.-3J.-$*A?-3A-YA.-/-.J-2!$-0:A$*A?-!-3-;A/-0-3A-YA.-0:A-KA<, ,$8%-.J-.$-$A?-/A-$8/-*J-#R-/-=3,:-28A-=?-*J-2:A-:V?-2-3A-<%-2<-3-9.-<%-.%-$*A?-!-.%-o-3J..%-$4S-2R-.%-.2%-K$-?R$?-=?-*J-2<-5-2-=-;%-:V?-2:A-3,:-28A-0R$%-;%-3A-<%-=, gJ/-:VJ=-IA-*J-2-=-;%-3R?-3,:-28A-.%-V=-2<-2!/+R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
69
(2) It would be illogical for something nonexistent to arise, because
again, what would the producing cause do? As is the case with the producing cause of a donkey’s horns, if something is the producer of a nonexistent result, it does not have the ability to produce anything at all.
[238.12] (3) It would be untenable for the produced result to be both
existent and nonexistent, because if it were so, what would the producing
cause’s function be? All the faults inherent in the first two views above
accrue to this one. Furthermore, existence and nonexistence are two
entirely different states—one cannot possibly exist within the other, and
therefore it is impossible for there to be an entity that both exists and does
not exist at the same time. Therefore, such an entity cannot be an object
produced by causal conditions.
[239.2] (4) It would be illogical for a product that was neither existent
nor nonexistent to arise, for what would the causal conditions’ function
be in that situation? A result that is neither existent nor nonexistent does
not exist. Furthermore, when both refuted possibilities of existence and
nonexistence are impossible, that which refutes them, the possibility of
neither existence nor nonexistence, is also impossible.
[239.10] This verse demonstrates that not only the arising of a result
from something different than itself is illogical in each of the four possible scenarios, but also that the arising of a result in any of these four
instances from self, from both self and other, without cause, from the
“principal,” Ishvara, or anything else, would also be logically unfeasible.
Thus, dependent arising is explained to be free of the fabrications of these
four possibilities.
70
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-KR$?-}-3-.%-, .J-.$$-0:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
$%-$A?-<%-v-=-$/?-:)A$-gJ/-5.-3<-:.R.-0?-/,,
:.A<-/A-<A$-0-5?-0-*A.-GA?-v-$R-&A-8A$-L,,
$8/-=?-$8/-:L%-2-;%-:)A$-gJ/-0-;A?-gR$?-:I<-+J,,
.J?-/-$8/-=?-*J-;R.-:.A<-/A-<A$?-0-&A-8A$-.$R?,, 22
#R-2R?-$8/-*J-12-0:A-<A$?-0-$%-5?-.J-.$-2.->A%-$3-IA?-V/-0-v<HR.-GA-]R:A-3J?-3-=?-0<-2YJ$?-0?, HR.-GA->J?-<2-GA-3J-%R<-2-z<-LJ.0:A-<A$?-0:A-2.->A%-2{=-2-.$R?-0-3J.-0?-(R$-$R, ,.J?-/-<A$?-0?3-P2-G%-<%-$A-:.R.-.R/-P2-0-;R.-.J, :)A$-gJ/-.-P2-0:A-.R/-.J-<A$?0?-$/R.-0<-L<-3J.-0:A-KA<-+J, :)A$-gJ/-IA-3,R%-2-/A->A/-+-!R2?-.%w/-0:A-KA<, 8J?-0-/A-:)A$-gJ/-0-$%-$A-<A$?-3A-<A$?-GA-eJ?-?-3-8$?0<-<%-$A-3,R%-2-!J-v-2-=-$/?-/?-;=-=-:)$-wR$-LJ.-&A%-, .J-v<L?-0?-.R/-,R2-0-*A.-GA?-:)A$-gJ/-IA-3%R/-?3-5.-3<-:.R.-0?-/,
$8/-*J-2<-:,.-0-2eR.-0-:.A<-/A-.J-12-LJ.-GA-<A$?-0-5?-0-*A.-GA?v-!R-&A-8A$-L-!J-L-3A-.$R?-+J, o-$8/-=?-:V?-2-$8/-:L%-2:%-:)A$gJ/-0:A-3%R/-?3-IA?-gR$?-0<-:I<-2:A-KA<, .J?-/-<A$?-0?-212-3A.$R?-0<-$8/-=?-*J-2-;R.-0<-P2-0?-:.A<-/A-<A$?-0?-:2.-/?-&A8A$-12-.$R?-+J-3A-.$R?-0<-,=, <A$?-0-/A-.%R?-0R-3%R/-?3-3A/-0-=2eR.-0<-:R?-GA, 3%R/-?3-=-3A-:R?-0:A-KA<-8J-/,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
71
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2. The refutation of arising from
other in conventional reality
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.1. The opponents’ position
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2. Refuting the opponents’ position
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.1. The opponents’ position
You say, “Since we assert that ordinary beings’ own experience is valid
cognition,
What need is there for logical reasonings?
Since even ordinary beings know that a thing arises from something
different than itself,
What need for reasonings to prove arising from other?” (22)
You say, “Whatever logical reasonings we have put forward to prove arising from other have burned away without a trace in the flames of your
intelligence, like firewood doused in oil. Enough, then—we do not need
to supply you with any more kindling of logical reasonings to make the
flames of your wisdom blaze any higher than they do at present.
“Thus we cannot prove our position with logic. There is another way
for us to accomplish our aim, however, because whatever reality is accepted
in the world cannot be controverted by logic—whatever is directly seen by
the world is too powerful for logic to deny. [240] Worldly beings do not
pay attention to what might be logical or illogical, they simply follow their
own experience. On the basis of that they decide whether to engage with
or reject a particular object, and having done so they are able to achieve
their goal. This is what causes us to assert that ordinary beings’ own experiences are direct valid cognition, and therefore, in our explanation of why
arising from other is tenable, why do we need to formulate logical reasonings to prove our point? We do not need to do so, because ordinary beings
know from their own direct perceptions that results arise from causes that
are different from themselves, and in this way the existence of arising from
other is established without needing to rely on logical reasoning. In this
situation, therefore, it is not necessary for us to exert ourselves in the formulation of reasonings. If something were not directly visible then it
would be appropriate to explain it with logical inferences, but when something is directly visible, as is the case here, then it is inappropriate to use
logic to make inferences about it.”
72
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-$8/-*J-P2-G%-.J-#R-/-*A.-,R.-0:A-{2?-?-3A-$/R.-0-.%-,
$8/-=?-*J-2-:)A$-gJ/-0-=-;%-3-P2-0:R, ,.%-0R-=, 8<-L%-2.J/-0$*A?-GA-i3-$8$ ,.G?-3-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-3A-$/R.-0<-2!/-0:R, ,.%-0R=-2.J/-$*A?-GA-.LJ-2-,A<-2!/, ?R-?R:C-%R-2R-o?-0<-2>.-0:R, ,.%-0R=-.%R?-.%-, 8<-=-3,R%-2-2m/-0:A-.LJ-2-2!/-0:R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
73
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2. Refuting the opponents’ position
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1. Even if arising from other were
established, it would not invalidate the the precise nature of reality
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.2. Arising from other does not even exist
for worldly beings
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1. Even if arising from other were
established, it would not invalidate the precise nature of
reality
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1. An ancillary presentation of the two
truths
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.2. Why the ordinary world cannot
controvert the precise nature of reality
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1. An ancillary presentation
of the two truths
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1. A general explanation of how
the two truths are classified
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.2. An extensive explanation of
each one
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1. A general explanation of
how the two truths are classified
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.1. The actual explanation
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2. As an ancillary topic, the
classifications of different types of false seeing
74
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
.%R?-!/-;%-.$-2m/-0-3,R%-2-;A?,,
.%R?-fJ.-%R-2R-$*A?-/A-:6B/-0<-:I<,,
;%-.$-3,R%-;=-$%-.J-.J-*A.-.J,,
3,R%-2-2m/-0-!/-mR2-2.J/-0<-$?%?,, 23
gJ/-:L%-92-3R-!R/-0:A-2!/-2&R?-GA-.R/-3-gR$?-0<, .%R?-:6B/-IA-2$($?-(A/-0?-.%R?-0R<-8J/-&A%-.%R?-0R:C-%R-2R-*A.-<%-28A/-IA?-!R%-0<-3,R?-0?-:)A$-gJ/-/-$8/-*J-;R.-=, $8/-*J-3J.-/-:)A$-gJ/-IA-3%R/-?3IA?-$/R.-.R-8J?-3-<A$-0:A-$*A.-GA-.2%-$A?-2hR=-,2?-5-2-=, :)A$gJ/-:.A-=-:O=-3-:O=-IA-.2%-$A?-$/?-{2?-2.J/-m/-IA-,-~.-)A-v<P$?-.%-, .J-#R-/<-2.J/-m/-IA-P$?-0:A-i3-$8$-2eR.-0-.%-V=-5=3-2>.-/-:)A$-gJ/-IA-]-2hR=-.-5-2:A-8J/-.R/-2?=-3A-/?-0?, :)A$gJ/-IA-3%R/-?3-IA?-$8/-*J-=-$/R.-0-;A/-3A/-?R$?-GA-H.-0<-2!/-0:A(J.-.-(R?-,3?-&.-=-2.J/-0-$*A?-GA-i3-0<-28$-0-:.A-v-2:A-.2%$A?-:.A-v<-$/R.-;=-;A/-3A/-.-:)R$-$R-8J?-!R/-0-/A-2&R3-w/-:.?-GA?M$-?R$?-KA-/%-$A-.%R?-0R-!/-=-2.J/-0-$*A?-?-i3-0<-28$-0-=?,
.R/-.3-0-/A-:1$?-0-;%-.$-0-$9A$?-0:A-;J->J?-.J-%R<-;=-;%-.$-0<:)R$-$R-8J?-2eR.-0<-9.-GA, <%-$A-2.$-*A.-.-P2-0-8A$-]R?-fJ.-L<;R.-0-3-;A/-/R, ,!/-mR2-/A-?R-*J-3-<A$-0:A-=A%-+R$-$A?-]R-3A$-3-=?#J2?-0-i3?-GA-]R-%R<-;=-2m/-0-3,R%-2-;A?-]R<-:)R$-$R, ,]R-.J?3,R%-2:A-:6B/-!%?-.%-3,/-0<-;=-.J-v<-P2-0-/A-3-;A/-/R,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
75
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.1. The actual explanation
There are two ways of seeing every thing: the authentic way and the false
way.
Therefore, every thing found holds two natures within.
The Buddha taught that authentic seeing sees reality’s precise nature
And false seeing sees relative truth. (23)
There are those people who do not understand the meaning of the treatise
that describes the profound topic of dependent arising.19 With the habitual tendencies of clinging to things as being truly existent ripening in their
minds, they fixate on things. Not having heard that things’ very essence is
empty by nature, while they sleep in this ignorance they mutter incomprehensibly that arising from other exists in the world and that the idea
that it does not is contravened by the world’s direct valid cognition.
If the fixation of those who mutter incomprehensibly in this way is to
be dispelled, two things must be explained to them: the way in which the
terms false and true are respectively used to describe the occasions in this
world of either being under the influence of confusion or not, and the way
that the precise nature of reality cannot be expressed as being either true
or false. [241] In order to teach, among other things, the distinction
between when worldly direct valid cognition controverts arising from
other and when it does not, the Transcendent Conqueror explained how
the two truths relate to all phenomena. When he explained things from
the perspective of the two truths, he could illuminate for his disciples the
distinction between when something is a controvertible object and when
it is not.
Thus, the Transcendent Conqueror presented the two truths with
respect to all inner and outer things, like sprouts and everything else. Genuine truth is described as being simply the authentic object of the noble
ones’ original wisdom that sees what is authentic and true; there is no identity actually established there for conceptual mind to find. Relative truth
is the false object seen from the perspective of the conceptual mind whose
eye of wisdom is completely covered by the cataract of ignorance, as is the
case with ordinary beings. It is therefore posited as being this conceptual
mind. The object perceived does not exist in the way that this mind perceives it to be.
76
The Moon of Wisdom
,.J?-/-.%R?-0R-fJ.-.R-&R$-,3?-&.-.R/-.3-0-.%-!/-mR2-0:A-%R-2R-$*A?-/A:6B/-0<-:I<-<R, ,.J-$*A?-=?-:1$?-0-;%-.$-0-3,R%-2:A-;=-$%;A/-0-.J-/A-.J-#R-/-*A.-.J-.R/-.3-2.J/-0:R, ,3,R%-2-2m/-0:A-;=-$%-;A/0-.J-/A-!/-mR2-2.J/-0<-!R/-0?-$?%?-?R,
$*A?-0-=-3,R%-2-2m/-0:A-.LJ-2-.%R?-.%-, .J-*A.-=-:)A$-gJ/-0?-3A$/R.-0<-2!/-0:R, ,.%-0R-=-;=-&/-.%-, ;=-IA-|R-/?-.LJ-2:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
3,R%-2-2m/-0:%-i3-0-$*A?-:.R.-.J,,
.2%-0R-$?=-.%-.2%-0R-*R/-w/-/R,,
*R/-w/-.2%-&/-i3?-GA->J?-0-/A,,
.2%-0R-=J$?-I<->J?-vR?-=R$-0<-:.R.,, 24
.J-v<-2.J/-$*A?-GA-%R-2R-i3-0<-28$-/?-3,R%-2-2m/-0-=:%-;%-.$.%-2m/-0-$*A?-;R.-0?, .J:A-;=-;=-&/-2!/-0:A-(J.-.-3,R%-2-2m/0:%-i3-0-$*A?-:.R.-.J, .2%-0R-S$-0R-<2-<A2-.%-3A$-?J<-?R$?-KA-/%$A-:O=-o?-*3?-0<-3-I<-0-$?=-0R-=?-*J?-0:A->J?-0-:)A$-gJ/-/;=-;%-.$-0<-:6B/-0<-P$?-0-i3?-.%-, .2%-0R-S$-:O=-o?-2a.0:A-*R/-w/-$*A?-?R, ,$%-9$-$%-8A$-*R/-w/-.2%-&/-i3?-GA->J?-0-/A.2%-0R-S$-0R-3-2a.-0:A-=J$?-0<-$/?-0:A->J?-0-=-2vR?-/?-=R$0:A->J?-0<-:.R.-.R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
77
Thus, the Teacher explained that every thing found holds two natures
within: a genuine nature and a relative one. From among these two, the
object of the noble ones’ authentic vision is the precise nature of reality,
genuine truth, and the object of false seeing is relative truth.
[271.5] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2. As an ancillary
topic, the classifications of different types of false seeing
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1. The actual classifications of
the different types of false seeing
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.2. Why the world cannot
controvert reality’s precise nature
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1. The actual
classifications of the different types of false seeing
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1. The perceiving subjects
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2. The perceived objects
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1. The perceiving subjects
Within false seeing, there are also two types:
Perception with clear faculties and perception with flawed faculties.
In dependence upon there being consciousness with properly functioning
faculties,
Consciousness when the faculty is flawed is called mistaken. (24)
Thus is the presentation of the essence of the two truths. Within false seeing as well there are classifications of authentic and false, and in order to
describe the perceived objects and perceiving subjects in each one of these
classifications, the Buddha asserted that false seeing has two aspects. First,
when no inner or outer causes of confusion (such as cataracts or jaundice)
are causing any impairment, the six faculties are clear, and a consciousness
arising from such a faculty is renowned in the world as a correct perceiver.
Second, when some cause of confusion is corrupting the six faculties, they
are said to be flawed. In dependence upon there being a consciousness
occurring with uncorrupted, properly functioning faculties, the consciousnesses of an individual whose faculties are flawed are called mistaken
consciousnesses.
78
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, ;=-=-2.J/-2m/-$*A?-?-,A<-.LJ-2-.%-, ;=-2m/-0:A-.LJ2-LJ-V$-+-2>.-0:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
$/R.-0-3J.-0:A-.2%-0R-S$-i3?-GA?,,
$9%-2-$%-8A$-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-gR$?-+J,,
:)A$-gJ/-*A.-=?-2.J/-;A/-z$-3-/A,,
:)A$-gJ/-*A.-=?-=R$-0<-i3-0<-28$, 25
:)A$-gJ/-0:A-3,R%-2-=-KA/-&A-=R$-3-=R$-$*A?-;R.-0-v<-;=-=:%-;R..R-8J?, KA-/%-$A-2a.-0?-$/R.-0-3J.-0:A-.2%-0R-S$-i3?-GA?-29%-2<L-2-$%-8A$-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-gR$?-0-!J, .J-/A-:)A$-gJ/-*A.-=-2.J/-0-;A/-+J,
:)A$-gJ/-IA-%R<-.J<-$%-=-2.J/-0<-8J/-&A%-,-~.-.-3A-2a-2:A-KA<,
:1$?-0-=-/A-.J-2.J/-0-3A/-+J, 3*3-$8$-+-:$:-;%-3-$9A$?->A%eJ?-,R2-+-.J-v<-$%-2-/A-:O=-0<-2eR.-0:A-KA<, z$-3-.2%-0R-$/R.2&?-GA-;=-.-$%-2-/A-:)A$-gJ/-*A.-GA-2.J/-2m/-=-2vR?-/?-=R$-0<i3-0<-28$-!J, :)A$-gJ/-0-.$-.J-v:A-;=-=-=-=-$%-2-;R.-G%-2.J/8J/-3J.-=, =-=-2.J/-8J/-;R.-G%-$%-2-3J.-0?-,/-3R%-$A-]%-.R<-IA-;=.-,-~.-3A-LJ.-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
79
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2. The perceived objects
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1. The general division into
true and false objects
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.2. A more specific
explanation of the classification of false objects [272]
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1. The general division
into true and false objects
The objects perceived by the six consciousnesses whose faculties are free
from fault
Are the things that worldly beings know,
And it is they alone who say these things are real.
Everything else is mistaken, they say. (25)
“Just as there are correct and mistaken modes of worldly perception, so it
is that there are correct and mistaken objects of perception as well.” This
statement shall now be explained.
The objects perceived by the six faculties when neither inner nor outer
corruption is causing them any damage are the things that worldly people
know. It is they alone who say these things are real, because from the world’s
perspective these things appear, are believed to be truly existent, and conventionally are undeceiving. These things are not real for noble beings,
because they are not seen at all during the noble ones’ meditative equipoise,
and because during the noble ones’ post-meditative stage of subsequent
attainment things that appear in this way are called confused appearances.
Everything else, meaning the objects that appear to impaired faculties,
in reliance upon the world’s own understanding of what is true and what
is false, the world labels as mistaken. This is because some worldly beings
perceive the appearances of these objects but do not cling to them as being
real, whereas others cling to true existence but do not perceive these
appearances—thus, they are not labeled as common objects to be accepted
or rejected.
80
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
3A->J?-$*A.-GA?-<2-2*R.-3-!J$?-&/,,
i3?-GA?-2.$-*A.-)A-28A/-2g$?-0-.%-,,
+-3-(A$-o-?R$?-=-2g$?-0-$%-,,
.J-.$-:)A$-gJ/-=?-G%-;R.-3A/-*A.,, 26
3A->J?-0:A-$*A.-GA?-<2-+-2*R.-0:A-KA-/%-$A-3-!J$?-&/-i3?-GA?-<%<%-$A-$8%-=?-2.$-.%-$4S-2R-.%-h=-U/-.%-!/-$8A-?R$?-.%R?-0R:C%R-2R<-2.$-*A.-)A-v-2-28A/-.-$/?-0<-2g$?-0-.%-, .2%-0R-2a.0:A-+-3-(A$-o-=-?R$?-=-g-\%-=-?R$?-0<-2g$?-0-$%-.J-/A-:)A$-gJ/=?-G%-;R.-0-3-;A/-0-*A.-/-.R/-.3-0<-v-(R?-G%-&A-.$R?-+J, :)A$-gJ/0-.$-.J-.$-$A-|R-/?-,-~.-LJ.-0-3J.-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
81
[275.2] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.2. A more
specific explanation of the classification of false objects
Likewise, the “self ” that is imagined to exist
By the tirthikas whose minds are overcome by the sleep of ignorance,
As well as anything that mirages, illusions, and so forth could be imagined
to be,
Even worldly beings know to be nonexistent. (26)
Overcome by the sleep of ignorance, non-Buddhist and Buddhist tirthikas20 imagine in their texts that the self, the principal, subtle particles,
the alaya, and so forth actually exist. These, along with the horses, elephants, and so forth that illusions, mirages, and other manifestations
appearing to corrupted faculties are imagined to be, are known even by
worldly beings to be nonexistent. There is no need to examine the status
these fabrications have in genuine reality, because even for worldly beings
they do not serve as the bases to which the label “existent” is applied.
82
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
3A$-/A-<2-<A2-&/-IA?-.3A$?-0-;A?,,
<2-<A2-3J.->J?-=-$/R.-3A/-)A-v<,,
.J-28A/-SA-3J.-;J->J?-%%?-0:A-]R?,,
SA-3J.-]R-=-$/R.-0-;R.-3-;A/,, 27
:.A<-$8/-*J-.$$-0-=-:)A$-gJ/-IA-3%R/-?3-IA?-$/R.-0-3J.-.J, !/mR2-2.J/-0:A-.LJ-2-/A-:)A$-gJ/-0:A-eJ?-?-:V%?-/?-2.J/-2m/-eJ?2eR.-L?-0-;A/-IA, $8/-*J-:$R$-0-/A-:)A$-gJ/-0:A-3,R%-2-#R-/<-$/?/?-.J:A-eJ?-?-:V%?-/?-2!$-0-3-;A/-IA, :1$?-0:A-$9A$?-0:A.2%-.-L?-/?-2!$-0:A-KA<-8J?-!R/-0-/A, 3A$-/A-<2-<A2-&/-IA-.3A$?0-;A-0->.-=-?R$?-0-.J?-/A-<2-<A2-3J.-0:A->J?-0-=-:O=-0-2*J.-0:A$/R.-0-3-;A/-0-)A-v-2-.J-28A/-.-SA-3J.-;J->J?-%%?-0:A-LA?-0:A-]R?:O=-/?-$8/-*J-3,R%-;%-:1$?-0-SA-3J.-]R-=-:O=-0<-2a.-0:A$/R.-0-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, ?R-*J:A-3,R%-2-.J-/A-:1$?-0?-3-$9A$?-0?-;3-2_-28.-$.-GA-$/?-GA-KA<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
83
[276.8] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.2. Why the world
cannot controvert reality’s precise nature
Just as the vision of one stricken by an eye disease
Cannot controvert what the consciousness of one with healthy vision
perceives,
So those whose minds have rejected stainless wisdom
Cannot invalidate what those with stainless minds realize. (27)
“Worldly beings’ direct perceptions do not controvert the refutation of
arising from other rendered here, because although we follow the world’s
classifications of true and false with regard to relative reality, the refutation
of arising from other is not confined to and does not rely on worldly perception alone; rather, it is a refutation made from the perspective of the
vision of the noble ones.” The meaning of this statement will now be
explained.
The falling hairs and so forth seen by one whose eyes are stricken by an
eye disease cannot controvert or create confusion for the consciousness of
one with healthy vision. Similarly, those immature beings whose corrupted and confused minds reject stainless wisdom and perceive instead
the activity of arising from other cannot invalidate the stainless minds of
the noble ones. The reason for this is that what ordinary beings see, the
noble ones in their wisdom do not, and therefore the former is nothing
more than an incredible joke.
84
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, !/-mR2-.%-.R/-.3-0:A-<%-28A/-2>.-0-=?,
.%-0R-/A,
$+A-3$-<%-28A/-1A2-KA<-!/-mR2-!J,,
.J?-$%-2&R?-3-2.J/-0<-$%-.J-/A,,
!/-mR2-2.J/-8J?-,2-0-.J?-$?%?-+J,,
2&R?-3<-I<-0:A-.%R?-/A-!/-mR2-+:R,, 28
.%R?-0R-i3?-2.J/-0-$*A?-GA-%R-2R<-2eR.-/?-:)A$-gJ/-!/-mR2-GA-2.J/0-2!/-0-/A, $+A-3$-/A-?J3?-&/-i3?-$/?-=$?-=-kR%?-0<-LJ.0:3, $/?-=$?-=?-$8/-.-1R-2+$?-/?-$/?-=$?-GA-<%-28A/3,R%-2-=-1A2-0<-LJ.-0:A-KA<, (R?-.J-v-2-=-/A-!/-mR2-&J?-L<-:)R$-!Jo-35/-2>.-9A/-+R, ,$+A-3$-$A-<%-28A/-!/-mR2-.J?-.%R?-0R-$%-<%28A/-3J.-28A/-;R.-0<-8J/-/?-.R/-=-3-8$?-G%-2&R?-3<-2+$?-0:AgJ/-:VJ=-IA-.2%-$A?-2.J/-0<-$%-2-.J-/A-!/-mR2-GA-2.J/-0-8J?-,2-0.J?-$?%?-?R, ,!/-mR2-GA-2.J/-0-.J-;%-*/-,R?-.%-<%-?%?-o?-.%L%-(2-?J3?-.0:-*R/-3R%?-0-&/-IA-3-<A$-0-%%?-0-:.-LJ.-$9$?2f/-=-?R$?-0:A-;R.-0-*A.-.%-:S-2<-$9A$?-0-i3?-=-/A-2&R?-3<I<-0:A-.%R?-0R-v-2<-I<-0-/A-<%-28A/-;A/-IA, 2.J/-0-3-;A/-+J-2.J/0<-_R3-0-3J.-0:A-KA<, LA?-0-i3?-=-/A-a-2<-LJ.-0-;A/-=, :1$?-0i3?-=-/A-+-3-v<-gJ/-:L%-*A.-GA-!/-mR2-43-.-:I<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
85
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.2. An extensive explanation of
each of the two truths
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1. The nature of relative truth
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.2.2. The nature of genuine truth
[277]
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1. The nature of relative
truth
Bewilderment obscures the true nature, so it is relative.
Whatever it contrives appears to be true.
This the Mighty One called the relative truth.
The noble ones know these contrived things to be merely relative. (28)
Having stated that all things are of the nature of the two truths, worldly
relative truth will now be described.
Bewilderment is that which causes sentient beings to be ignorant about
the abiding nature of reality. Alternatively, it is that which imagines the
abiding nature of reality to be something other than what it actually is and
in this way obscures the view of its true nature. Such a phenomenon is
called relative for the reasons that have been explained.
This relative obscurer, whose nature is bewilderment, believes that
things that have no inherent nature are in fact truly existent. It therefore
does not engage in genuine reality. Instead, it imagines that these fabricated entities truly exist, and the dependently arisen power of doing this
causes these entities to take on the appearance of truth. That, the Mighty
One explained, is relative truth.
[277.last] Moreover, shravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas
have abandoned afflicted ignorance and see composite phenomena as
being similar in the quality of their existence to reflections and so forth.
For them, therefore, the relative is of a nature that resembles fabricated
things rather than being something true, because they do not wrongly
assume it to be true. Relative truth deceives immature beings, but the noble
ones know it to be illusory, merely relative, and of the essence of dependent arising.
86
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
<2-<A2-3,-;A?-0->.-=-?R$?-0:A,,
%R-2R-=R$-0-$%-8A$-i3-2g$?-0,,
.J-*A.-2.$-*A.-$%-.-3A$-.$-0?,,
3,R%-.J-.J-*A.-.J-28A/-:.A<->J?-IA?,, 29
2.J/-0-.%-0R-2eR.-/?-$*A?-0-2!/-0<-28J.-0-=, .J-/A-;A.-.%-1:A.%R?-;=-3A/-0:A-KA<, *J-2R-i3?-=-3,/-0<-MR%-2:A-.0J?-2!/-0-/A,
<2-<A2-&/-IA?-<2-<A2-3,-;A?-29:-2+%-0->.-=-?R$?-0:A-%R-2R-=R$0-$%-8A$-;R.-0<-i3-0<-2g$?-/?, .J-?J=-2<-:.R.-/?-$R.-.J-:PJwR$-LJ.-0<-(J<-%=-2-/, 3A$-.$-0?-.J:A-$/-.-KA/-/?-$R.-.J<-H.-$8A0->.-*A.-3-.3A$?-/-.J:A-H.-(R?-.%R?-0R-.%R?-3J.-0->.-;A/-3A/-.J:A3.R$-3,R/-!-v<-}R-3A-}R<-3A-gR$-$R, ,.J?-/-3A$-3-.$-0-=-3A$-.$-0?$R.-:.A<-0->.-;R.-0-3-;A/-/R-8J?-5?-0?-5-0R-=-{<-:.J2?-GA-*J?-0;R.-0-3-;A/-/R, ,0->.-?R$?-GA-.J-*A.-/A-$R.-$%-.-2.$-*A.-3A$-.$-0$%-$A?-3,R%-2-.J-.J:A-.J-*A.-;A/-IA, 3-.$-0?-3,R%-2-/A-.J:A-.J-*A.-3A/-0.J-28A/-2.J/-$*A?-=-.JR.-0:A-{2?-:.A<-;%-3-<A$-0?-.J-*A.-3-3,R%2?-1%-?R$?-.3A$?-0-/A-!/-mR2-2R, ,3-<A$-0:A-<2-<A2-.%-V=-2:AmR$?-0:A-?%?-o?-GA?-0->.-v-2:A-1%-?R$?-$9A$?-0-3J.-0<-.J:A-<%28A/-3,R%-2-/A-.R/-.3-2.J/-0<->J?-0<-IA?->A$ ,.J:A-KA<-?%?-o?-GA?<-3-<A$-0-$*A?-GA?-2a.-0-$+/-=R$-0?-!/-mR2-GA-$%-2-3A-:(<-2/A-,=-:I<-2:A-=$?-,/-3R%-3-;A/-0:R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
87
[284.11] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.2.2. The nature of
genuine truth
False entities that are imagined to exist,
Such as the falling hairs that appear to one stricken with eye disease,
How their nature is seen by one with flawless eyesight—
This is how you should understand reality’s precise nature to be. (29)
Having thus described the first truth, now in the teaching on the second,
since it cannot actually be conceived of or expressed, Chandrakirti uses
an example that is in accord with ordinary individuals’ experience to
explain it.
For a person whose eyes are stricken by disease, the power of that ailment makes him imagine that falling hairs and other false entities exist in
his eating bowl. Wishing to be rid of this difficulty he turns the bowl upside
down, but in vain. Along comes a person with flawless eyesight who, not
seeing the falling hairs in the first place, has no concepts of any qualities
the falling hairs might have, like whether they are things or an absence of
things, whether they are falling hairs or not, or whether their color is blue
like a gemstone or not. Then, when the person with flawless eyesight tells
the person with faulty vision that there are no falling hairs in the bowl, she
does not commit the fault of denying the existence of something actually
there. The quality of the falling hairs in the bowl as seen by the one with
flawless eyesight is their actual nature precisely; what the person with faulty
vision sees is not the hairs’ actual nature at all.
Similarly, in the context of this analysis of the two truths, the following
distinction can be made: When ignorance does not see the precise nature
of reality, the aggregates and other phenomena that it does perceive are the
relative. [285] As the person with flawless eyesight does not see the falling
hairs, so the perfect Buddha, free of the disease of ignorance, does not see
the aggregates and so forth, but instead sees their true nature. This is how
you should understand genuine reality to be. Thus, the Consequence
School’s extraordinary explanation is that since on the buddhas’ ground
the corruption of the two types of ignorance21 has been completely
reversed, at that level relative appearances do not manifest.
88
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, :)A$-gJ/-5.-3-3A/-0:A-o-35/, .J?-/-.J-*A.-=-:)A$-gJ/IA?-3A-$/R., 8<-=-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-$/R.-0:A-;=-2!/-0:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
$=-+J-:)A$-gJ/-5.-3-;A/-/-/A,,
:)A$-gJ/-.J-*A.-3,R%-2?-:1$?-$8/-IA?,,
&A-.$R?-:1$?-0:A-=3-IA?-&A-8A$-L,,
]/-0R-5.-3<-<A$?-0:%-3-;A/-/R,, 30
$=-+J-.J-*A.-.JR.-0:A-{2?-:.A<-:)A$-gJ/-IA-3,R%-2-5.-3-;A/-/-/A-(R?&/, .J-*A.-!R/-0:A-:1$?-0-$8/-IA?-3HJ/-0-&A-8A$-.$R?-+J-3A-.$R?0<-,=, :)A$-gJ/-0?-.%R?-0R:C-.J-*A.-5.-3?-P2-0<-3,R%-2?-3-<A$0-%R%-2<-LJ.-0:A-KA<, ;%-:)A$-gJ/-IA-5.-3?-.J-*A.-3,R%-;%-.-.%,2?-GA-(<-I<-0:A-,R?-0-.%-5=-OA3?-=-?R$?-0:A-:1$?-=3-=2gJ/-0?-&A-!R-~3-/, .J-v<-/-:1$?-0:A-=3-,R?-?R$?-GA?-&A-8A$-L-!J,
.J<-21A3?-0?-:V?-2-.R/-;R.-0-3-;A/-0<-,=, :)A$-gJ/-IA-3A$-?R$?5.-3?-.J-*A.-gR$?-0-$%-8A$ ,.J-v<-gR$?-/-PR=-2-=-.J-*A.-GA?-(R$0?-:1$?-=3-$8/-!/-3A-.$R?-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
89
[286.last] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.2. Why the ordinary
world cannot controvert the precise nature of reality
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.2.1. Worldly cognition is not valid
cognition
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.2.2. Therefore, the world cannot
controvert the precise nature of reality [287]
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.2.3. An ancillary explanation of exactly
what objects the world can controvert
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.2.1. Worldly cognition is not
valid cognition
If worldly cognition were valid,
Since worldly beings would see the precise nature of reality, what need for
the noble ones?
What would the noble path accomplish?
For the foolish to have valid cognition would be illogical. (30)
At this stage of examining the precise nature of reality, if worldly beings’
perceptions were in fact valid cognition, then what need would there be
for the knowledge of some other “noble beings” who teach the precise
nature of reality? In fact there would be no need for the noble beings,
because worldly beings would see the precise nature of things as it was
established by their own valid cognition, and in this way they would abandon ignorance on their own.
[289.7] You might wonder, “Even though worldly beings see the precise nature of reality, wouldn’t they still need to listen to the teachings on
skillful means and to rely on the noble path of ethics and so forth?”
What, however, would listening to, analyzing, or practicing the teachings of this path accomplish? All that discipline would not lead to any
worthwhile result, because worldly beings’ eyes and so forth would
already be validly realizing the precise nature of reality, and since realizing that is enough to achieve liberation, all other “noble paths” would be
unnecessary.
90
The Moon of Wisdom
;%-:)A$-gJ/-0:A-5.-3?-.J-*A.-3,R%-;%-3-<A$-3-%%?-0?-:1$?-0<3-I<-+R-8J?-.R$?-/, :R-/-3-<A$-0?-]/-0R<-I<-0:A-]R-5.-3-<A$?-0:%3-;A/-/R-!J, ;=-$%-=-;=-&/-$%-3-gR$?-0-.J-5.-3-3-;A/-0:A-KA<,
/R<-2-3#/-0R-3A/-0?-/R<-2-3A->J?-0-28A/-/R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
i3-!/-:)A$-gJ/-5.-3A/-.J-;A-KA<,,
.J-*A.-{2?-?-:)A$-gJ/-$/R.-0-3J.,, 31 !#
.J-#R-/-*A.-i3-0<-.JR.-0:A-{2?-?-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-$/R.-0-3J.-.J, .J:A-o35/-.J-*A.-.JR.-{2?-?-i3-!/-:)A$-gJ/-5.-3-3-;A/-0-.J:A-KA<, :O=>J?-GA-3,R%-2?-3-:O=-2:A-3,R%-2-=-$/R.-0-3J.-0-28A/-/R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
91
Still, you might have the following doubt: “Worldly beings’ valid cognition may see the precise nature of reality, but if they have not abandoned
ignorance, they will not transform into noble beings.” If that is the case,
however, then for their minds, having been made foolish by ignorance, to
cognize validly would be illogical. This is the case because whenever a given
perceiving subject does not know or realize a given object of perception,
it does not cognize that object validly, just as someone who is not an expert
jeweler does not understand jewels.
[297.20] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.2.2. Therefore, the
world cannot controvert the precise nature of reality
Since worldly beings’ perceptions are never valid cognition,
They can do no harm at the time reality’s precise nature is explained.
(31ab)
[298] At the stage of analyzing the precise nature of reality, worldly perception can do no harm, because at the stage of analyzing the precise
nature, worldly beings’ perceptions are invalid in every way. It is just as
with an instance of vision as experienced by a confused consciousness—
such confused vision cannot controvert vision that is not confused.
92
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
:)A$-gJ/-.R/-/A-:)A$-gJ/-P$?-*A.-GA?,,
$=-+J-?J=-/-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-$/R.-:I<,, 31 $%
:R-/-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-$/R.-0-$%-.-:)$-&J-/, :)A$-gJ/-P$?-0-*A.-GA?:)A$-gJ/-=-P$?-0:A-.R/-/A-$=-+J-?J=-2<-LJ.-/-o-.J:A-KA<-:)A$-gJ/IA?-$/R.-0<-:I<-+J, .0J<-/-#-&A$-$A?-%:A-m?-UR$?-?R-8J?-5?-0-.%, $&A$->R?-GA?-m?-&A-8A$-;A/, .J?-5?-0, 23-0:R-8J?-5?-0-=, .J?,
23-0-/A-m?-3-;A/-+J, $8=-L-;A/-0:A-KA<, kA-=3-IA-23-0-28A/-8J??/-:LA/-0-v-2-=-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-$/R.-.J, :)A$-gJ/-/-?.-0:A-$/?{2?-GA-23-0-2.J/-0<-:.R.-&A%-, kA-=3-IA-23-0-2.J/-0<-3A-:.R.-0?.0J-.R/-3A-35%?-0:A-KA<-.%-, <A$?-0:A-.J.-0-8A2-3R-#?-3A-=J/-0:AKA<, $%-$A-5K-:1$?-0:A-$9A$?-0-=-$/?-+J-*J-2R-3#?-0-5.-3<-LJ.0-.J:A-5K-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-$/R.-0-3-;A/-/R, ,3#?-0?-KR$?-:.A-v<-$8/=:%-<A$?-:PJ-!J, .0J<-/-$%-<%-$A-2.$-*A.-3A-3,R%-2-.J?-$8/-;%3A-3,R%-!J, 23-0-28A/-3A$-$A?-G%-<%-*A.-3A-3,R%-2:R-8J?-5?-0-=,
3A$-$A?-$8/-3,R%-2-:)A$-gJ/-=-P$?-?R-8J?-?R$?-P$?-0-5.-3<LJ.-0-,3?-&.-=-P$?-0?-:1$?-0:A-$9A$?-0-=-3A-$/R.-.R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
93
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.1.2.3. An ancillary explanation of
exactly what objects the world can controvert
If worldly objects are denied, then since they are renowned in the world,
Worldly beings can controvert such denials. (31cd)
You might ask, “Well then, exactly when would the world be able to controvert something?” The answer is that if worldly objects themselves are
denied, then since these objects are renowned in the world, worldly beings
can controvert such denials. For example, someone might say, “A substance
of mine was stolen!” Someone else may ask, “What substance?,” to which
the first person would reply, “A vase!” If the second person attempts to fault
this statement by saying, “A vase is not a substance because it is an object
of comprehension, like a vase in a dream,” then worldly beings can controvert that. This is the case because first of all, worldly beings assert that
vases in the waking state truly exist, whereas they do not assert that vases
in dreams truly exist, and therefore the example of the dream that the second person offered is not equivalent to the actual situation that the first
person experienced; and second of all, because worldly beings do not
believe in subtle logical analysis. When one relies on the vision of the noble
ones, however, and takes the cognition of the wise to be valid cognition,
at that time worldly beings cannot controvert anything.
Knowledgeable individuals will apply this thesis to other situations as
well. For example, someone might say, “Whatever cannot see itself cannot
see something other than itself; for example, a vase. The eye cannot see
itself, either.”22 Someone else may reply by saying, “It is commonly known
in the world that the eye sees things other than itself,” or something similar to that, but all such cases of taking worldly renown to be valid cognition cannot controvert the enlightened vision of the noble ones.
94
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
$%-KA<-:)A$-gJ/-?-2R/-43-2+2-/?,,
2.$-$A?-2-:.A-*J.-&J?-5-LJ.-&A%-,,
>A%-;%-24$?-?R-~3-.-gR$?-.J?-/,,
$8/-=?-*J-2-:)A$-gJ/-=?-G%-3J.,, 32
:)A$-gJ/-IA-3,R%-2-.%-2!/-/?-eJ?-2eR.-L?-G%-$8/-*J-:$R$-0-=:)A$-gJ/-IA?-3A-$/R.-0-/A, .%R?-0R-i3?-$8/-=?-*J-2-.J-#R-/<-v-8R$
,:)A$-gJ/-=?-G%-$8/-=?-*J-2-3J.-.J, $%-KA<-:)A$-gJ/-0-.$-3:A3%=-.-?-2R/-43-2+2-/?-KA?-1R-.2%-.%-w/-0-8A$-24?-0-/-2.$-$A2-:.A-2*J.-&J?-5-2<-LJ.-&A%-, A-W:A-?-2R/-43-24$?-/?-KA?->A%-#R%(J<-*J?-0-/-:.A-;%-2.$-$A?-24$?-?R-~3-.-gR$?-0<-LJ.-GA, ?-2R/.%-:V?-2-m?-$8/-.-v-2<-3A-LJ.-0-.J?-/:A-KA<, .J-=?-$8/-<%-$A-2=?-=?-2+R/-/?-3%=-.-:)$-:LA/-.%-, >A%-;%-?-2R/-:.J2?-5K-;=:.2-o?-0-&/-24$?-0-/A-3-;A/-0?-:)A$-gJ/-/-o-:V?-$&A$-0<-;%3A-:I<-=, o-35/-}-3-v<-2.$-$A-2-.%-2.$-$A?->A%-2*J.-0<-L?-?R8J?-2eR.-GA, .J-v<-3A/-0<-$8/-IA?-$8/-2*J.-/-2.$-$A-2-?R$?-*J2<-!R/-0:A-{2?-3J.-.R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
95
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.2. Arising from other does not
even exist for worldly beings
Just from planting a seed
Worldly beings claim, “I produced that boy!”
Or, “I planted that tree!”
Therefore, even worldly beings do not assert arising from other. (32)
[299] Followers of the Middle Way express things in harmony with
worldly convention and modes of perception, but even so, the world does
not controvert the refutation of arising from other. Leave aside the possibility that things arise from other in the precise nature of reality; there is
not even any arising from other in terms of what beings in the world
believe. The reason for this is that just from planting a seed in the mother’s
womb, later when a male child is born, worldly people say, “I produced
that boy!” And, just from planting a mango seed, later when a mango tree
grows, they think, “I planted that tree!” They do not, however, view the
seed and the result to be entities made of different substances.
Furthermore, the father does not extract his child from his own body
and place it in the mother’s womb, nor when planting a seed does a person put an entire tree complete with branches and leaves into the ground.
Therefore, worldly beings do not believe that cause and result are the same
thing, either.
Since they do not assert arising from other, worldly people say things
like, “I produced that boy” and “I planted that tree.” If it were otherwise,
however, and they did assert production from other, they would never say
things like, “That’s my boy” and so forth.
96
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, gJ/-:VJ=-g$-(.-3J.-0<-P2-0:A-;R/-+/-2!/, %R-2R<-P2-/!R%-*A.-{<-:.J2?-?-:I<-2:A-*R/-2!/-0:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
$%-KA<-M-$-?-2R/-=?-$8/-3A/,,
.J-KA<-M$-5K-?-2R/-8A$-0-3J.,,
$%-KA<-$&A$-*A.-;R.-3A/-.J-KA<-;%-,,
M$-5K-?-2R/-;R.-&J?-2eR.-3A-L,, 33
:.A<-?-M$-$8/-0<-I<-/-(R?-&/, M-$-*J?-0:A-5K-/-?-2R/-o/-(.-0<:I<-+J, $8/-;A/-0:A-KA<, 2-3J/-;R.-0?-2-=%->A-;%-2-=%-o/-3-(.-*
0<-3A-:I<-2-.%-, ?R-*J-;R.-0?-:1$?-0-M-%/-=?-3-:.?-0-3-;A/-028A/-/R, ,.J?-/-M-$-*J?-0:A-5K-?-2R/-8A$-&A%-o/-(.-0-3J.-.J, $%-KA<M-$-?-2R/-=?-$8/-3A/-0-.J:A-KA<-5=-.J?-(.-0-%%?-0-;A/-/R, ,M$-5K?-2R/-;R.-&J?-2eR.-0<-3A-L-!J, $%-$A-KA<-?-M$-$&A$-*A.-.-;R.-0-3;A/-0-.J:A-KA<-<R, ,5=-.J?-g$-0-i3-0<-%%?-0-;A/-/R,,
* With Khenpo Rinpoche’s approval, this phrase, which appears in the manuscript of the text
has been corrected to read the way it appears herein.
as
2-=%->A-;%-2-3J/-o/-3-(.----
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
97
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2. The point established by the
refutations of arising from other
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.1. The positive qualities of dependent arising
being free of permanence and extinction
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.2. If dependent arising existed in essence, the
fault would be that emptiness would be a destroyer of things
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.1. The positive qualities of dependent
arising being free of permanence and extinction
Because the sprout is not different from the seed,
The seed does not cease when the sprout comes into existence.
Because they are not the same thing,
We do not say that the seed exists at the time of the sprout, either. (33)
If seed and sprout were different from each other, when the sprout arose
the seed’s continuum would be cut, because the two would be different
entities. For example, the existence of a wild ox does not prevent a cow’s
continuum from being cut when the cow dies, nor does the existence of
an ordinary individual prevent a noble being from passing into nirvana.
Therefore, when the sprout arises, the seed does not cease and its continuum is not cut, because the sprout is not different from the seed. In this
way, this mode of explanation abandons the extreme of extinction.
[300] Nor is it expressed that the seed exists at the time of the sprout,
because seed and sprout are not the same thing. In this way, this mode of
explanation perfectly abandons the extreme of permanence.
98
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
$=-+J-<%-$A-35/-*A.-2gJ/-:I<-/,,
.J-=-{<-0?-.%R?-0R-:)A$-0:A-KA<,,
!R%-*A.-.%R?-0R-:)A$-0:A-o<-:I<-/,,
.J-/A-<A$?-3A/-.J-KA<-.%R?-;R.-3A/,, 34
.J?-/-.%R?-0R-:$:-;%-<%-$A-35/-*A.-GA?-*J-2-3J.-.R-8J?-L-2-:.A-/A%J?-0<-$.R/-3A-9-2<-#?-]%-2<-L-.$R?-+J, .J-v<-3-;A/-0<-$=-+J$9$?-/?-i3-3HJ/-IA-2<-IA-(R?-,3?-&.-]R?-2+$?-0-43-3-;A/-0<%-$A-35/-*A.-.J-<%-$A-%R-2R:C-o-.%-nJ/-=-2gJ/-/?-:L%-2:3-*J-2<:I<-/-!R%-*A.-.J?-.%R?-0R:C-<%-28A/-;R.-0-3J.-0<-5?-0?-.%R?-0R:)A$-0:A-o<-:I<-2<-,=, i=-:LR<-0-i3?-GA?-!R%-*A.-3,R%-2-/,
.%R?-0R-i3?-<%-$A-35/-*A.-GA?-*J-2-.J-=-{<-0-2+2-0?-.%R?-0R-:)A$0<-LJ.-0:A-KA<, ,R-2?-23-0-:)A$-0-28A/-/R, ,:.R.-0-.J-v<-/, .J-/A<A$?-0-3-;A/-+J, .%R?-0R-i3?-<%-$A-%R-2R-35/-*A.-GA-*J-2-;R.-0-3-;A/0-.J:A-KA<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
99
[301.9] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.2.2. If dependent arising existed
in essence, the fault would be that emptiness would be a
destroyer of things23
If there arose phenomena whose specific characteristics actually existed,
The noble ones’ wisdom would deny them and would therefore be a
destroyer of things.
Emptiness would therefore be the cause of things’ destruction.
Since that is illogical, things do not exist. (34)
Thus, it is definitely necessary to assert without doubt that things do not
arise by virtue of their own specific characteristics. If it were not like that—
if all phenomena from form through omniscience were not mere conceptual imputations, but rather, if in dependence upon causes and conditions,
their specific characteristics arose in essence—then since emptiness would
imply that things have no inherent nature when in fact they would have
one after all, emptiness would therefore be a destroyer of things. This
would follow because when yogis and yoginis see emptiness, that insight
denies that things arise by virtue of their own specific characteristics. Thus
in this hypothetical situation, emptiness would destroy things, just as a
hammer destroys a vase.
If someone were to say, “I accept that this is true,” that would be illogical, because the arising of things in essence, by virtue of their own specific
characteristics, does not exist.
100
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-=, !/-mR2-.%-:$=-2-%%-2-.%-, 3,R%-2-.%-:$=-2-.%-,
=?-:V?-.%-:$=-2-%%-2:R, ,.%-0R-=, !/-mR2-.J.-/?-28$-L-3A/0, .J.-/-2.J/-0-$*A?-&<-3R?-0-.%-V=-2:A-5=-=R,,
.%-0R-/A,
$%-KA<-.%R?-0R-:.A-.$-i3-.J.-/,,
.J-*A.-2.$-&/-.%R?-=?-5-<R=-+,,
$/?-fJ.-3-;A/-.J-KA<-:)A$-gJ/-IA,,
,-~.-2.J/-=-i3-0<-.J.-3A-L,, 35
.J?-/A-$%-KA<-!/-mR2-0:A-.%R?-0R-:.A-.$-i3-0<-.J.-/-.J-#R-/-*A.-.R/.3-0:A-2.$-*A.-&/-IA-.%R?-(R?-*J-:$$-.%-V=-2-=?, 5-<R=-$8/-.!/-mR2-0:A-*J-:$$-+-P2-0:A-$/?-fJ.-0-3-;A/-0-.J:A-KA<, .J-#R-/-*A.=-?J3?-0-/-!/-mR2-0:A-(R?-=-.JR.-GA, :)A$-gJ/-0?-!/-mR2-=-3.J.-0<-:)R$-0-/-/A-:)A$-gJ/-IA-,-~.-2.J/-0-=-i3-0<-.J.-0-3A-L:R,
,.J?-/-3-.J.-0-/-:)A$-gJ/-0?-3,R%-2-:.A-;R.-/-:.A-:L%-8J?-0-438A$-$8/-IA-eJ?-2eR.-.-L-2-:,.-.J, .J:A-]%-.R<-=-2gJ/-/?-.J-*A.-=:)$-.$R?-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
101
[306.10] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3. The rebuttal of arguments
opposing the refutation of arising from other
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.1. Rebutting the argument that the
refutation is in contradiction with relative truth
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.2. Rebutting the argument that the
refutation is in contradiction with what we see
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3. Rebutting the argument that the
refutation is in contradiction with karmic cause and result
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.1. Rebutting the argument that the
refutation is in contradiction with relative truth
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.1.1. The relative is not something posited by
analysis
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.1.2. When analyzed, both truths are found
to be beyond conceptual fabrications
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.1.1. The relative is not something
posited by analysis
If you analyze these things,
Other than the identity of reality’s precise nature,
You will not find any state at all.
Therefore, do not analyze the world’s conventional truth. (35)
[308.20] Thus, if you analyze these relative things, other than the identity of the precise nature of reality, genuine truth, free from arising and cessation, you will not find any state in which relative arising and ceasing are
established as existent. Therefore, analyze relative phenomena if you have
the precise nature of reality in mind, but since worldly beings posit the relative without analyzing it, then you should not analyze the world’s conventional truth, either.
Thus, when worldly beings without analyzing say, “When this thing I
see here exists, then this other one will arise,” it is appropriate to follow
after them in merely this type of description, because one must depend
upon the activity of accepting and rejecting within that conventional
realm in order to enter the precise nature of reality.
102
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
.J-*A.-{2?-?-<A$?-0-$%-8A$-$A?,,
2.$-.%-$8/-=?-*J-2-<A$?-3A/-0:A,,
<A$?-.J?-,-~.-.-;%-<A$?-3A/-0?,,
HR.-GA-*J-2-$%-$A?-;A/-0<-:I<,, 36
.%R?-0R-=-8J/-v-&/-.$-.%R?-0R<-P2-0-,3?-&.-2.J/-0-$*A?-!<-;R.0-i3-0<-.J.-0-=-:)A$-gJ/-(.-GA-.R$?-0?-VJ.-.J-:#R<-:.?-.%-!//?-*R/-3R%?-.%-, i3-L%-$A-o<-I<-0:A-m?-GA-%R-2R<-P2-0:A-(R?->A$;R.-.R-8J?-5-/, .J-v<-;R.-.R-8J?-5B$-+-5?-G%-$/?-5S.-=-:P2-0-3;A/-0?, .R/-.3-.J-#R-/-*A.-.JR.-0:A-{2?-?-)A-{.-2>.-0:A-<A$?-0$%-8A$-$A?-.%R?-0R-i3?-2.$-.%-$8/-=?-*J-2-<A$?-0-3-;A/-0<-P20:A-<A$?-0-.J?-,-~.-.-;%-2.$-$8/-=?-*J-2-?R$?-<A$?-0-3-;A/0?-HR.-GA-2.J/-0-$*A?-!<-*J-2-$%-$A-;A/-0<-:I<-+J-*J-2<-3A-:P22R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
103
[310.19] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.1.2. When analyzed, both
truths are found to be beyond conceptual fabrications
When analyzing for ultimacy, reasonings prove
That arising from self or other is illogical.
Since these same reasonings demonstrate arising to be illogical in
conventional reality as well,
As for your “arising,” what is it that proves its existence? (36)
[311] Those whose views fixate on things as being real are afraid of analyzing the existence of all phenomena in both of the two truths. They are
frightened of the thought of the world being nothingness, and so they say,
“There do exist phenomena, substantially and in essence, that are the
causes of samsara and nirvana, of affliction and purity.”
They might say, “Things exist like that,” but apart from being mere
words, there is no such existence in the true nature of reality. Therefore,
when analyzing for ultimacy, the precise nature of genuine reality, the reasonings that have been explained prove that arising from self or other is
illogical. These same reasonings prove that arising from self or other is
illogical in conventional reality as well, and so as for your “arising,” what
is it that logically proves its existence in either of the two truths? In fact,
arising cannot be logically established at all.
104
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, 3R?-0-.%-V=-;%-o-:V?-?-$%-2-3A-:$=-2:A-5=, .J?g$-(.-.%-V=-2<-2!/-0:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
.%R?-0R-!R%-0-$9$?-2f/-=-?R$?-0,,
5S$?-=-vR?-i3?-3-P$?-0-;%-3A/,,
)A-v<-.J<-/A-$9$?-2f/-?R$?-!R%-=?,,
>J?-0-.J-;A-i3-0-*J-:I<-v<,, 37
.J-28A/-.%R?-0R-,3?-&.-!R%-/-;%-,,
!R%-*A.-.$-=?-<2-+-*J-2<-:I<,, 38 !#
2.J/-0-$*A?-!<-<%-$A-%R-2R?-*J-2-3J.-/-*J-?R$?-GA-%R-2R-:)A$-gJ/-.-)Av<-.3A$?->J-/, *J-?R$?-:)A$-gJ/-.-.3A$?-0?-:)A$-gJ/-.-2.J/-0$*A?-!<-*J-?R$?-P2-2.J/-.-;R.-0-(J?-:$=-2<-5?-0:R, ,8J?-!R/-0/A-.%R?-0R-<%-28A/-IA?-!R%-0-$9$?-2f/-.%-+-3-=-?R$?-0-/A-3J-=R%.%-L.-28A/-.%->A%-2-hJ:-.%-}$?-?R$?-o-nJ/-IA-5S$?-0-=-2vR?-/?:L%-8A%-, .3A$?-0-i3?-:)A$-gJ/-/-3-P$?-0:%-3-;A/-=, :V?-2<%-2.J/-0-3A/-0-:V?-2-v<-$%-2-=-o-nJ/-=-2vR?-/?-:)R$-G%-onJ/-<%-2.J/-0<-I<-0-/A-3-;A/-+J, )A-v<-3J-=R%-=-?R$?-0-.J<-/A-.3A$?nJ/-$9$?-2f/-=-?R$?-0:A-o-<%-28A/-IA?-!R%-0-=?-;=-&/-.J:A:V?-2->J?-0-$9$?-2f/-.J:A-i3-0<-*J-:I<-.J-v-2:A-KA<, .0J-.J28A/-o-:V?-$*A?-!-<%-28A/-0-3A/-+J, 3=-0-=?-3=-0-:L%-2-v-2:AKA<, .J-28A/-.-+-3-
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
105
[314.11] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.2. Rebutting the argument
that the refutation is in contradiction with what we see
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.2.1. It is not contradictory for things to
appear as causes and results even though their nature is beyond
conceptual fabrications
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.2.2. Therefore, causes and results are free
from the extremes of permanence and extinction
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.2.1. It is not contradictory for
things to appear as causes and results even though their
nature is beyond conceptual fabrications
Empty things, like reflections and so forth,
Are known to arise due to the coming together of causes and conditions.
Just as it is that from a reflection or some other empty phenomenon
A consciousness beholding the image of that arises,
So it is that even though all things are empty,
From their empty causes and conditions they vividly arise. (37-38b)
Someone might ask, “If things in their essence do not arise in either of the
two truths, then why do we see arising happening in the world?” The reply
to this question is, “It is totally contradictory to claim that the perception
of arising and so forth happening in the world proves that arising and so
forth actually exist in either of the two truths.”
The explanation of this reply is as follows: Things that are empty of any
inherent nature, such as reflections, illusions, and so forth, are commonly
known to arise and be perceived due to the coming together of causes and
conditions, like a mirror and a face, or a pebble or piece of wood and a
mantra, and so forth. [315] The result that is itself not real, the mere semblance of a result, is posited in dependence upon causes and conditions;
however, the causes and conditions themselves are not real, either. It is just
as is the case that in a mirror or somewhere else the focal condition of a
reflection or some other phenomenon that is empty of inherent nature is
a cause from which a result arises, namely a subject perceiving that focal
condition, a consciousness beholding the image of that reflection. Just as
is the case in this example, cause and result do not inherently exist, because
their relationship is like that of emanations manifesting from emanations.
106
The Moon of Wisdom
=-?R$?-0-2m/-0:A-.0J-,3?-&.-=-.<-+J->J?-0<-L:R, ,.J-28A/$9$?-?R$?-.%R?-0R-,3?-&.-o-:V?-,-..-.-3A-$/?-0:A-5=-IA-<%28A/-IA?-!R%-/-;%-<%-$A-o-nJ/-IA?-!R%-0-*A.-.$-=?-<%-28A/-IA?-!R%0-*A.-GA-:V?-2-:)A$-gJ/-IA-%R<-,-~.-43-.-<2-+-*J-2<-:I<-<R-8J?-L2-8A$-P$?-?R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
2.J/-0-$*A?-?:%-<%-28A/-3J.-0:A-KA<,,
.J-.$-g$-0-3-;A/-(.-0:%-3A/,, 38 $%
gJ/-:L%-$A-(R?-.J-.$-g$-0-3-;A/-(.-0:%-3-;A/-+J, 2.J/-0-$*A?-?:%<%-$A-%R-2R-*A.-GA-<%-28A/-3J.-0:A-KA<-$9$?-2f/-v<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
107
[315.11] One should similarly apply this analogy to illusions and all other
examples of false entities.
So it is that forms and all other things are empty of inherent nature, in
the sense that causes and results do not exist as different entities, but nevertheless, from causes that are empty of inherent nature there come results
that are empty of inherent nature, vividly arising and renowned in what is
merely the conventional reality of worldly beings’ perspective.
[316.15] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.2.2. Therefore, causes and
results are free from the extremes of permanence and
extinction
Since things have no inherent nature in either of the two truths,
They do not fall into the extremes of permanence and extinction. (38cd)
Dependently arisen phenomena do not fall into the extremes of permanence and extinction, because in their very essence they have no inherent
nature in either of the two truths, just like reflections.
108
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-=, .%R?-.%-, 8<-=-=?-:V?-GA-gJ/-$?%?-0-S%-.R/-.-2!/0:R, ,.%-0R-=, <%-28A/-3J.-G%-=?-:V?-GA-:VJ=-0-:,.-0-.%-, ,.R/.J-*A.-.0J:A-|R-/?-12-0-.%-, .J-=-,$-3J.-.-@-&%-,=-2-%%-2:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
$%-KA<-<%-28A/-IA?-.J-3A-:$$-0,,
.J-KA<-!/-$8A-3J.-G%-:.A-/?-KA<,,
=-=<-=?-:$$?-;/-<A%-=R/-=?-G%-,,
:V?-2-;%-.$-:L%-2<-<A$-0<-IA?,, 39
.J?-/-=?-:V?-.%-=?-:V?-GA-gJ/-.%R?-0R-.R/-LJ.-0:A-<%-28A/-.%-%R2R-&/-.-P2-0<-5-2-.J-.$-,3?-&.-/A-?J%-$J-^-2:A-PR%-HJ<-8A$-$A-.R$?/?-;A.-:L%-2?-%=-2:A-5K$?-(J/-0R?-.J:A-l-:6B/-LJ.-0<-_R3-0<-9..J, =?-:V?-?R$?-<%-28A/-IA?-!R%-0-*A.-*J-:$$?-.%-V=-2-=-g$(.-.-1R-2+$?-/?-<%-%R?-3-P2-0-=-P2-0<-:2.-/?-lRR.-0:A-KA<-.R/3J.-0-#R-/:R-8J?, =?-GA-.%R?-0R:C-%R-2R-/A-<%-28A/-IA?-.J-3A-:$$-0-;A/+J, $%-$A-KA<-8J-/, =?-<%-28A/-IA?-3-*J?-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
109
[321.last] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3. Rebutting the argument
that the refutation is in contradiction with karmic cause
and result
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.1. The actual rebuttal
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.2. An ancillary explanation that the
teachings about a support for cause and result are provisional in
meaning
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.1. The actual rebuttal
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.1.1. Even though they have no inherent
nature, karmic cause and result are still tenable [322]
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.1.2. Proving this with an example
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.1.3. Disproving the argument that claims
never-ending results to be the absurd consequence of the refutation
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.1.1. Even though they have no
inherent nature, karmic cause and result are still tenable
Since cessation does not truly occur,
Even though there is no alaya, karmic results can arise from karmic
actions.
Sometimes, a long period of time elapses after the action has ceased,
But no matter—know that its result will most certainly arise. (39)
[328.9] It is taught: “Thus, all those who claim that karmic causes, results,
and a support for those karmic causes and results essentially exist and
inherently perform functions are like a lion who, frightened that the city
on the moon will fall down from the sky, exhausts himself in tremendous
efforts to raise a support to hold the moon up in its place—they are simply making a mistake. Karmic causes and results are empty of any nature
of their own and are free from arising and ceasing, yet these people superimpose onto them the concepts of permanence and extinction and put all
kinds of effort into establishing them as existent from their own side when
in reality they are not. All their activity in that regard is pointless and their
arguments are meaningless.”
This teaching will now be explained. The entity of a karmic action does
not inherently cease, and why not? The reason is that it did not inherently
110
The Moon of Wisdom
.J?-/-*J-:$$-3J.-0:A-3-8A$-0-.J-:.?-3-L?-0-=?-,-~.-m/-%R-.%-2a%R<-=?-:V?-GA-:V?-2-:.?-L?-:L%-3A-<%-2:3, 3A-YA.-0-3-;A/-0.J:A-KA<-!/-$8A-?R$?-=?-:V?-GA-gJ/-.%R?-0R-<%-2.J/-0-3J.-G%-:.?0:A-=?-=?-3-:R%?-0:A-:V?-2-:.A-:L%-2<-/?-0:A-KA<-;=-.?-=-=<=?-:$$?-/?-;/-<A%-=R/-0-=?-G%-i3-(A/-IA-:V?-2-;%-.$-:L%2<-:$=-2-3J.-0<-<A$-0<-IA?->A$
$*A?-0-/A,
kA-=3-.3A$?-0:A-;=-.$-3,R%-/?-/A,,
?.-G%-]/-=-($?-0-*J-:I<-2,,
.J-28A/-:$$?->A%-<%-28A/-;R.-3A/-0:A,,
=?-=?-G%-/A-:V?-2-;R.-0-;A/,, 40
.R/-.3-0<-=?-<%-28A/-3J.-0-.%-, !/-mR2-+-=?-:$$?-0-$%-;%<%-2-=?-G%-:V?-2-:L%-3A-<A$?-/-$*A?-!-=?-v-&A-(R?-8J-/, )A-{.2~.-0:A-.R/-*A.-.0J:A-|R-/?-2>.-0-/A, :$$?-/?-;/-<A%-.-=R/-&A%<%-28A/-;R.-0-3-;A/-0:A-=?-=?-G%-/A-i3-(A/-IA-:V?-2-:L%-2-;R.0-;A/-+J, .0J<-/-kA-=3-.-.3A$?-0:A-;=-:.R.-.R/-.$-.%-, 2.-3J.29%-3R-.%-z/-&A$-:.R.-0-,R.-0-3,R%-/?-/A-a<-?.-0-/, kA-=3-IA-2.3J.-<%-28A/-IA?-3-P2-&A%-:$$?-?-9A/-G%-]/-0R-:$:-8A$-.J-=-:.R.0:A-($?-0-*J-2:A-o<-:I<-2-.J-28A/-.-:.A<-;%-35%?-?R, ,:.A:A-.0J.R/-o?-0<-YA.-0-:1R-2:A-3.R-=?-:L%-2-28A/-<%-:PJ=-/-2!R.-;R.-.R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
111
arise in the first place. Therefore, from the perspective of conventional reality, which is false and deceiving, it is neither impossible nor untenable for
a composite karmic result to arise from an unarisen, unceasing, undecaying noncomposite. Therefore, even though no alaya or any other entity
that might be a support for karmic causes and results truly exists, karmic
results can still arise in the future from karmic actions committed in the
past. Sometimes, a long period of time elapses after the action has ceased,
but no matter—know that its fully ripened result will most certainly arise,
and there is absolutely nothing contradictory about its doing so.
[351.10] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.1.2. Proving this with an
example
Having seen objects in a dream,
Desire for them arises in fools even after they awake.
In the same way, even though karmic actions have ceased and have no
inherent nature,
Results are still fully able to arise from them. (40)
Someone may say, “If in genuine reality it is illogical for karmic results to
arise from actions that have no inherent nature, and in relative reality it is
illogical for results to arise from actions that have ceased, then how much
more illogical would it be for a result to arise from an action that both lacks
inherent nature and has ceased.” As a reply, the point expressed in the last
verse will now be explained by means of an example.
Fully ripened results still arise from karmic actions even though those
actions have ceased a long time ago and have no inherent nature, because
for example, when a fool dreams of desirable objects and of having intercourse with a beautiful woman, when he wakes up that dream woman can
still be a cause for desire arising within him even though she does not truly
exist and even though she ceased when the dream ended. The situation
here with karmic cause and result is equivalent to this example. In Chandrakirti’s own commentary on the text, he quotes the Buddha’s extensive
explanation of this example and its meaning from the Transference of Existence Sutra. [352]
112
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-=, ,$-3J.-.-@-&%-,=-2-%%-2-.%-, !R%-;%-=?-:V?-?R-?R<%J?->A%-2?3-IA?-3A-H2-0:R,,
.%-0R-/A,
)A-v<-;=-/A-;R.-*A.-3A/-35%?-G%-,,
<2-<A2-&/-IA?-0->.-i3-0<-/A,,
3,R%-$A-.%R?-$8/-i3-0<-3-;A/-v<,,
.J-28A/-(A/-=?-a<-(A/-3A/->J?-IA?,, 41
=?-<%-28A/-IA?-3-*J?-0-=-9.-:$$-3J.-0:A-KA<, i3-(A/-:L%-2<:.R.-/-)A-v<-i3-(A/-3-2*J.-0:A-=?-v<-i3-(A/-K%-9A/-0?-G%-:V?2:A-:LA/-0<-:I<-+J, 3-:$$?-0:A-KA<-8J-/, )A-v<-;=-0->.-.%-<A2R%-$A-G-?R$?-/A-;R.-0-*A.-3-;A/-0<-35%?-G%-, <2-<A2-GA?-2a.-0:A3A$-&/-IA?-/3-3#<-0->.-?R$?-GA-i3-0<-/A-3,R%-$A 2R%-2:A-G-.%-3R$>3-IA-2-?R$?-.%R?-0R-$8/-IA-i3-0<-3,R%-2-3-;A/-0-v<-i3-(A/-K%9A/-0-.%-3-9A/-0:A-=?-.$-G%-3-:$$?->A%-<%-28A/-3J.-0<-35%?G%-, }<-:V?-2-K%-9A/-0:A-=?-GA?-i3-0<-(A/-9A/-0:A-=?-=?-a<;%-:V?-2-(A/-0-3A/-0<->J?-0<-IA?->A$-!J-.0J-}-3-.J-28A/-/R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
113
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.1.3. Disproving the argument that
claims never-ending results to be the absurd consequence
of the refutation
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.1.3.1. The actual rebuttal of the argument
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.1.3.2. Although empty, karmic causes and
results are nevertheless individually certain and inconceivable
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.1.3.1. The actual rebuttal of the
argument
Although the objects are equally nonexistent,
Those with an eye disease see the images of falling hairs
But not the images of other things.
Similarly, know that an already ripened action does not ripen again. (41)
Someone may claim, “Karmic actions that do not inherently arise do not
cease, and therefore, if one asserts that these actions can fully ripen into a
result, then actions that have already produced a fully ripened result should
be just as able to give rise to a result as actions that have not yet produced
a result, because those actions do not cease.”
Although the objects themselves—falling hairs, rabbits’ horns, and so
forth—are equally nonexistent, those whose eyes are afflicted by disease
see the images of falling hairs in the sky, but not the images of other things,
like donkeys’ horns, the children of childless women, and so forth. In the
same way, although karmic actions that have given rise to ripened results
and those that have not are equally unceasing and lacking in inherent
nature, know that ripened results do not arise again from actions that have
already produced ripened results.
114
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
.J-KA<-i3-(A/-3A-.$J-/$-0R:C-=?,,
i3-(A/-.$J-*A.-.$J-=?-;A/-3,R%-8A%-,,
.$J-3A-.$J-3J.-]R-&/-,<-:I<-+J,,
=?-:V?-i3?-=-?J3?-0:%-.$$-0-36.,, 42
.0J-:.A?-=?-i3?-i3-(A/-3-%J?-0-3-;A/-0-:2:-8A$-+-3-9.-GA, ?R-?R<3-* %J?-0:%-3-;A/-+J, 0->.-?R$?-<%-28A/-3J.-G%-%J?-0-3,R%-2-.J-*A.GA-KA<, .$J-3A-.$J:A-=?-<%-28A/-3J.-0-;A/-G%-i3-(A/-;A.-.-3A-:R%-2-3A.$J-2:A-o-/A-/$-0R:C-=?-3A-.$J-2-*A.-=?-;A/-IA, .$J-2-=?-3-;A/-=, i3(A/-;A.-.-:R%-8A%-.$J-2-*A.-/A-.$J-2:A-=?-;A/-0<-3,R%-$A, 3A-.$J-2-=?3-;A/-&A%-, 3#?-0-$%-8A$ ,.$J-3A-.$J:A-=?-$*A?-!-<%-28A/-3J.-0<gR$?-0:A-]R-&/-/A-,<-2<-:I<-+J, .J-v<-<%-28A/-3J.-0:A-=?-GA?-:V?2-:LA/-0-.%-, i3-(A/-?R-?R<-%J?-0:A-5=->A/-+-gR$?-.!:-2:A-KA<,
2&R3-w/-:.?-GA?-?R-?R-*J-2R->A/-+-=?-:V?-=-%J?-0<-.JR.-0-i3?-==?-:V?-{<-0-2+2-0-=?-!/-mR2-:)A$-0<-:I<-.-:R%-%R-~3-!J-0$-0&/-.J-.R<, =?-i3?-GA-:V?-2-i3-0<-(A/-0-/A-2?3-IA?-3A-H2-0R-8J?=?-:V?-GA-:VJ=-0-i3?-=-LA?-0-i3?-GA?-?J3?-0:%-.$$-0<-36..J, o-:.A-=?-:V?-2-:.A-*J:R-8J?-=?-:V?-GA-:VJ=-0-5-<R=-3,R%-2?-3AgR$?-0:A-KA<-+J, =?-:V?-<%-28A/-IA?-3-P2-G%-2a-3J.-.-?R-?R<-2.J/0<-$%-2-/A-,R?-2?3-|R3-0:A->J?-<2-GA-<A$?-0:A-3,-=?-;A/-IA, <%* The Tibetan manuscript reads
be corrected to read
?R-?R<-%J?-0- but Khenpo Rinpoche instructs that this should
?R-?R<-3-%J?-0-, as it appears here.
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
115
[353.4] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.1.3.2. Although empty,
karmic causes and results are nevertheless individually
certain and inconceivable
Therefore, we see that the causes of negative results are nonvirtuous actions
And only positive results ripen from virtuous actions.
Those who realize that there is neither virtue nor nonvirtue gain
liberation;
The Buddha stopped the analysis of cause and result. (42)
The above example not only demonstrates that the full ripening of karmic
actions into results is definite; it also shows that their specificity is definite,
because even though the falling hairs have no inherent nature, they definitely appear to one suffering from that specific eye disease. Therefore,
even though virtuous and nonvirtuous actions have no inherent nature,
we see that the cause of a negative and unpleasant ripened result is precisely a nonvirtuous, negative action, whereas only positive and pleasing
results ripen from positive, virtuous actions. We do not see, however, positive results arising from nonvirtuous actions. Furthermore, when wise
individuals have the acuity to realize that neither virtuous nor nonvirtuous karmic actions have any inherent nature, they gain liberation.
This way in which karmic actions lacking inherent nature give rise to
results and how it is that the specificity of those fully ripened results is certain is very difficult to realize. The Transcendent Conqueror therefore told
those ordinary individuals who, if they tried to definitively analyze karmic
cause and result, would deny its existence and then become frightened that
the relative world would disintegrate, not to engage in such analysis. “How
it is that results ripen from karmic actions is inconceivable,” the Buddha
taught, and thereby stopped immature beings from analyzing the connections between actions and their results. He did this because ordinary
beings do not have the capacity to understand the precise connections
between causes and results implicit in statements like, “From this action,
that result will arise.” For how it is that karmic actions and results do not
inherently exist but nevertheless appear in a way that is specific, undeceiving, and seemingly truly existent is something that can only be known
through the power of the precise knowledge arising from listening, reflecting, and meditating. If instead, one just sits down and starts to think about
116
The Moon of Wisdom
.$<-2?3?-/-:$=-2-*A.-.-gR$-0-=?-]R:A-;=-)A-v-2<-%J?-0-!J-$9%L<-2?3-IA?-3A-H2-0:A-KA<-<R,,
$*A?-0-=, !/-$8A-?R$?-$?%?-0-S%-.R/-.-2!/-0-.%-, .J-28A/$>J$?-0?-;R.-0<-$?%?-0-,3?-&.-S%-.R/-.-2!/-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
!/-$8A-;R.-&A%-$%-9$-*A.-;R.-=,,
1%-0R-:.A-.$-:2:-8A$-*A.-;R.-&J?,,
2!/-0-:.A-/A-.J-v<-(J?-92-.R/,,
<A$-0<-3A-:I<-$%-;A/-.J-=:R,, 43
&A-=?-:V?-<%-28A/-3J.-0-=-=?-:V?-i3-0<-:)R$-/, =%-$>J$??R$?-=?, !/-$8A:A-i3-0<->J?-0-(R?-3,:-;?-0:A-/?-0:A-H.-0<-IA2|R-$8A-?-2R/-,3?-&.-0-o-35S-=?-_2?-v<-.%R?-0R-,3?-&.-*J-2:Ao<-$?%?-0-.J-&A-i3-0-,3?-&.-.-3J.-0-8A$-$3-8J-/, $%-9$-#-&A$8J/-0:A-]R-%R-.J<-2vR?-/?-.J<-3R?-0<-LJ.-0-43-8A$-;R.-0-=-2?3?/?-.J-%R<-i3-0-,3?-&.-.-3J.-0-/A-3-;A/-+J, 1-)A-28A/-0-3A/-0?.$R%?-0-.J-{.-.-2!/-0?-$.=-L-=-.J-;R.-0-*A.-.-2!/-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
117
it all on one’s own, one will believe there to be some contradiction inherent within it. One simply cannot conceptually grasp the definitive nature
of karmic cause and result as it actually is—it is inconceivable. [354]
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.2. An ancillary explanation that
the teachings about a support for cause and result are
provisional in meaning
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.2.1. The teachings on the alaya and so
forth are provisional in meaning
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.2.2. All the teachings in which the
Tathagata taught that something exists are teachings of the
provisional meaning
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.2.1. The teachings on the alaya
and so forth are provisional in meaning
When the Buddha taught, “The alaya exists,”
“The individual exists,” and “These aggregates alone exist,”
It was for those who could not immediately understand
The most profound nature of reality. (43)
Someone may ask, “If it is the case that even though karmic cause and result
have no inherent nature, the Buddha still gave complete explanations
about them, then what about the alaya? In The Travel to Lanka Sutra and
others, the Buddha taught that the alaya-consciousness is the base in which
is imprinted the specific potentials of all the limitless phenomena there are.
He taught that it holds the seeds of everything; that all things arise from it
as their cause, like waves arising from the ocean. Is the alaya something
completely nonexistent?”
Due to the fixation present in the minds of certain individuals, they
became interested in the alaya, and thus one can consider that it does exist
merely in that way. Thus from those individuals’ perspective the alaya cannot be said to be completely nonexistent, because the teachings about it,
which are not to be taken literally and therefore have a hidden intention,
the Buddha gave to those who needed to be tamed in that particular way—
he taught them that the alaya exists.
118
The Moon of Wisdom
.$R%?-0-.J-{.-.-$?%?-/-.J:A-.$R%?-$8A-/A-$%-8J-/, !R%-*A.-#R-/-=.$R%?-+J-!/-$8A-8J?-0:A-.%R?-0R-2-8A$-;R.-0-{.-.-2!/-+J, .%R?-0R,3?-&.-GA-<%-28A/-=-eJ?-?-8$?-0:A-KA<, .J?-/-3.R-#J-$%-.-!/$8A:A-i3->J?-=?-:V?-GA-gJ/-.-;R.-&A%-$.=-L:A-%R<-$%-9$-*A.-G%;R.-0-$?%?-0, )A-{.-., .$J-aR%-.$-1%-0R-s-/A-#<-<R, ,#<-#<-2-/A$%-9$-$R-8J?-$?%?-0-.%-, #-&A$-=-/A-2.$-.%-V=-2:A-1%-0R-:.A-.$:2:-8A$-*A.-;R.-&J?-2!/-0-:.A-/A-.$R?-0-.%R?-0R<-v-2-&/-.$-=-.Jv<-(J?-92-0:A-.R/-!R%-0-*A.-<A$-0<-3A-:I<-2-$%-;A/-0-.J-.$-=-2!/0-<A3-:)$-$A-(J.-.-!/-$8A-?R$?-1?-9A/-v<-;R.-0<-2!/-0-;A/-+J,
KA?-$?%-<2-GA-.R/-KA/-=R$-.%-V=-2<-gR$?-0-/-!/-$8A-?R$?-=-8J/0:%-%R%-2<-:I<-2:A-KA<, .J-v<-2!/-0-=?-;R/-+/-:L%-$A-*R/-/A-3;A/-+J, ?%?-o?-GA-2!/-0-2{=-0:A-.?-.%-$%-9$-$A-o.-=-.0$?/?-!R/-.$R?-0:A-KA<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
119
If the Buddha had a hidden intention when he described the alaya in
that way, then what was the basis of his intention? The Buddha was referring to emptiness alone when he described the existence of a thing called
alaya, because emptiness is the all-pervading true nature of everything.24
Thus, whenever in the sutras the Buddha taught that the alayaconsciousness is the support of karmic actions and results; whenever he
taught the particular disciples to be tamed that the individual also exists,
as he did when he stated:
Bhikshus, the five aggregates are the burden,
And the individual is the one who carries this burden;
and whenever he taught to some others that the aggregates absent the self
are alone what exist, the reason he did so was that those who have the view
that things truly exist could not immediately understand emptiness, the
most profound nature of reality. [355] In order to help these disciples
engage in the teachings gradually, the Buddha taught them that the alaya
and so forth exist, because later, when they could understand the meaning of the Buddha’s perfect speech in an unmistaken way, they could give
up their attachment to the alaya and so forth as well. This manner of giving teachings is only the source of qualities and is not flawed in any way,
because whenever one of the Buddha’s teachings is explained, the time in
the aeon that the teaching was given and the state of the mindstreams of
the disciples who received it must be determined and taken into account.
120
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
:)A$-5S$?-v-.%-V=-;%-?%?-o?-GA?,,
)A-v<-%-.%-%-;A-2!/-0-v<,,
.J-28A/-.%R?-i3?-<%-28A/-3J.-3R.-GA,,
;R.-&J?-S%-.R/-*A.-.-2!/-0-;A/,, 44
2!/-0-3(R$-=-$.=-L-.NA-(J.-.-!/-$8A-2!/-0<-3-9., ,:)A$-5S$?GA-v-2-,3?-&.-%%?-G%-%-.%-%-;A-?R$?-GA-,-~.-GA?-:)A$-gJ/-IA-.R/#R%-.-(.-0:A-(J.-.-?%?-o?-GA?-%-.J:A-5K-.J:A-.?-/-8J?-?R$?-)A-v<-%.%-%-;A-2!/-0-v<-.J-28A/-.-.%R?-0R-i3?-<%-28A/-P2-0-3J.-3R.-GA,
.R/-92-3R-#R%-.-(.-(J.-.-$9$?-/?-i3-3HJ/-IA-2<-IA-.%R?-0R-i3?;R.-&J?-S%-.R/-*A.-.-2!/-0-;A/-/R, ,:.A-/A-2.J/-0-28A-.%-$*A?-.%-%R2R-*A.-$?3-?R$?-2!/-0-3,:-.$-=-:.R/-0-2+<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section A
121
[355.11] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2.3.3.2.2. All the teachings in
which the Tathagata taught that something exists are
teachings of the provisional meaning
Although free of the view of the transitory collection,
The Buddha taught using the words “I” and “mine.”
Similarly, although things lack inherent nature,
The Buddha taught, “They exist,” as a teaching of the provisional
meaning. (44)
It was not only the alaya that the Buddha described in order to lead those
to be tamed to the supreme teachings. Even though he himself had abandoned all views of the transitory collection, the Buddha used the conventional terms “I,” “mine,” and so forth in order to help the world understand
the true nature of reality. So he said things like, “At that time, I...” and so
forth.
In the same way that the Buddha taught using the words “I” and “mine,”
he also taught that all things from form through omniscience exist, even
though they really have no inherent nature at all. He taught provisionally
in this way in order to help the world understand the profound nature of
reality. This understanding should be applied to his explanations of the
four truths, the two truths, the three natures, and so forth—to all the
teachings that the Buddha gave.
Part II:
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
Translator’s Preface
Chandrakırti begins his refutation of the Proponents of Perception by
describing their position in the initial three verses (45-47) of this section
of his Entrance to the Middle Way. The third of those verses sets the course
for the refutation that follows:
Therefore, an other powered entity
Serves as the cause for things that exist as designations:
It arises in the absence of external, apprehended objects,
Exists, and exists as a nature that is not an object for all elaborations.
In verses 48 through 83, Chandrakırti disassembles the assertion of an other
powered entity that serves as the cause for things such as visible forms. As
this other powered entity has three qualities—cognition that neither
requires nor involves external objects, substantial existence, and freedom
from the elaborations—Chandrakırti addresses each of these in turn.
He asks his opponents to provide an example for cognition in the
absence of an object external to consciousness. They offer three: dreams,
the strands of hair that are seen by those whose eyes are diseased, and the
skeletons imagined by a yogin or yoginı immersed in meditation upon
ugliness. Chandrakırti replies to those suggestions in verses 48 to 53, 54 to
68, and 69 to 70, respectively. In verse 71, he considers a fourth example,
the pus seen by hungry ghosts where human beings see water. In this series
of verses, Chandrakırti refutes the possibility of cognition in the absence
of external objects.
The substantial existence of the other powered entity serving as the base
for other phenomena is analyzed and rejected in verses 72 to 76. This discussion revolves primarily around the status of a knower of itself that
124
The Moon of Wisdom
would lend credibility to such an assertion. It leads Chandrakırti to consider also the aspects of previous experience that memory can and cannot
validate.
In verse 77, Chandrakırti examines the last of the three qualities attributed to the other powered base for the appearance of phenomena: its
unborn and unknown character. In verses 78 to 80, he studies the assertion of a causal relationship tying this other powered entity to the conventional phenomena that conceal suchness. He finds this assertion to be
defensible neither from the perspective of the world’s customs nor from
the perspective of the two truths.
Having concluded his refutation of the tenets set forth by the Proponents of Perception, in verses 84 to 97 Chandrakırti offers alternatives to
their explanations of the passages in scripture upon which they rely, a misunderstanding of which has driven them to invent a system of tenets that
he finds to be deeply flawed. Here Chandrakırti explores the meaning of
the phrase mind only and introduces the difference between a definitive
meaning and a meaning that requires interpretation. The discussion of the
Proponents of Perception ends here; afterwards, Chandrakırti turns to
other aspects of production from the four extremes.
Superscripted, lowercase letters of the alphabet refer the reader to footnotes where upon first occurrence I have given the Tibetan and, where
known, Sanskrit equivalents for technical terms. The numbering of these
notes begins again with the first letter of the alphabet on each new page.
Superscripted Arabic numerals refer to endnotes that will be found following my translation of Karmapa Mikyö Dorje’s commentary. These
notes are numbered consecutively. A glossary of English, Tibetan, and Sanskrit equivalents will be found immediately following the endnotes. In the
transliteration of Sanskrit terms, I have departed from standard practice
by replacing Ÿ, ˝, and c with sh, ˝h, and ch, respectively.
From the sixth chapter of Chandrakırti’s
Entrance to the Middle Way,
the verses refuting the Proponents of Perception
126
The Moon of Wisdom
,$9%-2-3J.-0<-:6B/-0-3-3,R%-8A%-,
,YA.-$?3-i3->J?-43-.-<2-gR$?-0?,
,>J?-<2-=-$/?-L%-(2-?J3?-.0:-.J?,
,i3->J?-43-.-.J-*A.-gR$?-0<-:I<,
45
,)A-v<-_%-$A?-2{=-2?-o-35S-/A,
,(J-=?-(-_2?-:L%-2-.J-28A/-.,
,!/-IA-?-2R/-!/-$8A-8J?-L-=?,
,<%-$A-/?-0?-i3->J?-43-8A$-:L%-,
46
,.J-KA<-$8/-IA-.2%-$A-%R-2R-$%-,
,.%R?-0R-2+$?-0<-;R.-0:A-o<-:I<-8A%-,
,KA-<R=-$9%-2-3J.-0<-:L%-:I<-=,
,;R.-.%-3R?-!/-;=-3A/-<%-28A/-;R.,
47
,KA-<R=-3J.-?J3?-.0J-/A-$%-.-;R.,
,kA-=3-)A-28A/-8J-/-.J-2?3-L,
,$%-5K-%-=-kA-=3-/-;%-?J3?,
,;R.-3A/-.J-5K-HR.-GA-.0J-;R.-3A/,
48
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
127
In the absence of an apprehended object, an apprehender is not seen, and
Due to realizing superbly that the three existences are only consciousness,
The bodhisattva abiding in incisive knowledge
Will realize suchness to be only consciousness. (45)
From the great ocean stirred by wind,
Waves arise; like that,
From the seeds of all, called the “base of all,”
Due to its energy, only consciousness arises. (46)
Therefore, an other powered entity
Serves as the cause for things that exist as designations:
It arises in the absence of external, apprehended objects,
Exists, and exists as a nature that is not an object for all elaborations. (47)
Where is the example for a mind without an external [object]?
When they reply, “Just like dreams,” that is to be considered.
For us, mind also does not exist in dreams;
Thus, your example does not exist. (48)
128
The Moon of Wisdom
,$=-+J-?.-5K-kA-=3-S/-=?-;A.,
,;R.-/-KA-<R=-;=-;%-.J-28A/-:I<,
,)A-v<-HR.-GA-%?-3,R%-~3-S/-0,
,.J-:S-KA-<R=-=-;%-;R.-0-;A/, 49
,$=-+J-$*A.-/%-3A$-]R-3A-YA.-0?,
,;R.-3A/-;A.-GA->J?-0-#R-/-;R.,
,.J-;A-i3-0-KA-<R=-*A.-.-8J/,
,kA-=3-)A-v-.J-28A/-:.A<-:.R.-/,
,)A-v<-HR.-GA-KA-;=-kA-=3-.,
,3-*J?-.J-28A/-;A.-G%-*J?-3-;A/,
,3A$-.%-3A$-$A-;=-.%-.J?-*J.-?J3?,
,$?3-0R-,3?-&.-G%-/A-2m/-0-;A/,
50
51
,i-?R$?-z$-3-$?3-0R:%-*J-2-3J.,
,kA-=3-)A-v-.J-28A/-?.-:.A<-;%-,
,.%R?-i3?-2m/-;A/-?J3?-.J-;R.-3-;A/,
,,R.-;=-3J.-&A%-.2%-0R-i3?-G%-3J.,
52
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
129
If remembering the dream when awake entails that mind
Existed, the external object [existed] as well.
You remember the experience, “I see”;
Like that, the external [is remembered] also. (49)
When they say, “In sleep, the eye’s awareness is not possible; therefore,
[External objects] do not exist. Only mental cognition exists.
Its aspect is regarded as just external.
Just like dreams, similarly here, [we] assert...” (50)
Just as your external objects were not produced in dreams,
Like that, mind also was not produced.
The eye, the eye’s object, and the mind they generate,
All three are false. (51)
The three of the remainder—the ear and so forth—also are not produced.
Just as in dreams, so also here, when awake:
Things are false, that mind does not exist,
The object of [its] operation does not exist, and the sense powers also do
not exist. (52)
130
The Moon of Wisdom
,:.A-/-)A-v<-?.-28A/-)A-YA.-.,
,3A-?.-.J-YA.-.J-=-$?3-0R-;R.,
,?.-0<-I<-/-$?3-(<-;R.-3A/-v<,
,$+A-3$-$*A.-?.-=?-.J-.J-28A/-/R,
53
,.2%-0R-<2-<A2-2&?-0-]R-$%-$A?,
,<2-<A2-3,-=?-0-i3?-$%-3,R%-2,
,.J-]R-=-vR?-$*A?-(<-2.J/-0-!J,
,.R/-$?=-3,R%-=-$*A?-!:%-2m/-0-;A/,
,$=-+J->J?-L-3J.-0<-]R-;R.-/,
,0-.J:A-;=-.%-3A$-/A-eJ?-:VJ=-0:A,
,<2-<A2-3J.-=:%-0->.-]R<-:I<-/,
,.J-v-3-;A/-.J-KA<-.J-;R.-3A/,
55
,$%-KA<-3,R%-2-.$-=-]R-/?-/A,
,(A/-3J.-.J-KA<-.J-=-]R-3A-:L%-,
,>J?-L-;R.-.%R?-V=-2?-3A/-8J-/,
,/?-.J-3J.-0?-:.A-/A-:P2-3-;A/,
56
54
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
131
Just like here while awake,
So long as one does not awaken, the three exist for that [dreamer].
When one awakens, all three do not exist. Similarly,
Due to an awakening from the sleep of bewilderment, these resemble
those. (53)
The mind of a sense power affected by disease
Sees hair due to the power of the disease.
Contingent upon that mind, both are true.
For one who sees objects clearly, both are false. (54)
Were a mind to exist while the object of cognition does not,
Where the hair and the eyes come into relationship,
For those lacking the disease also there would be a mind [appearing as]
strands of hair.
Because it is not like that, there is no [production]. (55)
They may say, “Because in those who see, the energy for a mind
Has not ripened, in them a mind does not arise;
It is not due to separation from what is to be cognized, an existent
thing.”
That energy does not exist; therefore, this is not established. (56)
132
The Moon of Wisdom
,*J?-=-/?-0-YA.-0-;R.-3-;A/,
,3-*J?-%R-2R-=-;%-/?-;R.-3A/,
,H.-0<-3J.-0<-H.-0<-&/-;R.-3A/,
,3R-$>3-2-=:%-.J-/A-;R.-0<-,=,
57
,$=-+J-:L%-2<-:I<-2?-2~.-:.R.-/,
,/?-0-3J.-0<-:.A-;A-:L%-:I<-3J.,
,1/-5/-.R/-=-2gJ/-0:A-:P2-0-/A,
,P2-3A/-*A.-&J?-.3-0-i3?-GA?-$?%?,
,$=-+J-:$$?-0:A-/?-(A/-=?-:I<-/,
,$8/-IA-/?-0-=?-$8/-:L%-2<-:I<,
,o/-&/-i3?-.J<-1/-5/-,-..-;R.,
,.J-KA<-,3?-&.-!/-=?-:L%-2<-:I<,
,$=-+J-.J<-/A-o/-&/-,-..-GA,
,.J-.$-=-o/-,-..-3J.-.J:A-KA<,
,*J?-3J.-&J-/-:.A-/A-212-L-8A$
,,-3A-..-o/-{2?-3A-<A$?-KA<-<R,
60
58
59
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
Energy is not possible in the produced.
A nonproduced entity does not have energy either.
In the absence of the qualification, nothing is qualified.
It would follow that even the child of a childless woman would have
that. (57)
They may assert an explanation because of what will come;
As the energy does not exist, nothing will come of it.
“Establishment that depends upon reciprocal objects
Is just not established,” the excellent have said. (58)
Were [consciousness] to evolve from the ripened energy of what has
ceased,
Other would arise from energy that is other.
Those having continuity are mutually different;
Therefore, all would arise from every[thing]. (59)
They may say, “There, those having continuity are different but
They do not have different continuity. Because of that,
There is no flaw.” This is what is to be established,
Because the occasion of continuity without difference is not
reasonable. (60)
133
134
The Moon of Wisdom
,L3?-0-*J<-&?-=-2gJ/-(R?-i3?-/A,
,$8/-*A.-KA<-/-o.-$&A$-$+R$?-3A/-+J,
,$%-.$-<%-35/-*A.-GA?-?R-?R-2,
,.J-.$-o.-$&A$-$+R$?-0-<A$?-3-;A/,
,3A$-]R-*J-2-<%-/?-$%-8A$-=?,
,.J-3-,$-+-!/-/?-*J-:I<-8A%-,
,<%-$A-i3->J?-gJ/-IA-/?-.J-=,
,.2%-0R-$9$?-&/-3A$-&J?-L-2<-gR$?,
,:.A-/-.2%-0R-=?-L%-i3-0<-<A$
,KA-$9%-3J.-0<-<%-$A-?-2R/-=?,
,}R-?R$?-$%-*A.-:L%-2<-3-gR$?-/?,
,*J-2R?-KA-<R=-29%-2<-?J3?-#?-=J/,
,kA-=3-/-/A-$9$?-.R/-$8/-3J.-0<,
,<%-/?-(A/-=?-.J-;A-i3-&/-?J3?,
,:L%-2-)A-v-.J-28A/-?.-=:%-:.A<,
,KA-<R=-3J.-0<-;A.-/A-;R.-&J-/,
64
61
62
63
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
The phenomena that depend upon Maitreya and Upagupta
Are just other; therefore, they are not included in one continuum.
To include those individualized by their specific characteristics
In one continuum is not reasonable. (61)
From a certain corresponding energy that will produce the eye’s mind
Immediately [it] is thoroughly produced, and
That energy that is the support for the corresponding consciousness
Is considered to be “the physical sense power, the eye.” (62)
Here, as for perception that arises from sense powers,
Without an external object of apprehension, from their seeds
Appearances arise, blue and so on. Not realizing this,
People conceive and affirm external objects of apprehension. (63)
They may say, “In dreams, without other objects, [such as] forms,
Through the ripening of its energy, a mind having their aspect arises.
Just like that, also when we are awake here,
Without the external, there is mental [consciousness].” (64)
135
136
The Moon of Wisdom
,)A-v<-3A$-3J.-0<-/A-kA-=3-.,
,}R-?R$?-$%-2:A-;A.-?J3?-:L%-.J-v<,
,3A$-.2%-3J.-0<-<%-$A-?-2R/-/A,
,(A/-=?-=R%-2-=-:.A<-&A?-3A-*J,
65
,$=-+J-HR.-v<-kA-=3-S$-0-;A,
,/?-0-(A/-;R.-?.-0<-3J.-I<-/,
,S$-0:A-/?-(A/-)A-v<-:.A<-3J.-0,
,.J-v<-kA-5K-3J.-&J?-&A?-3A-<A$?,
66
,)A-v<-3A$-3J.-:.A-;A-o-3A/-v<,
,kA-=3-.-;%-$*A.-/A-o-3-;A/,
,.J-KA<-kA-=3-.-;%-.J-.%R?-3A$
,2m/-0:A-;=-&/-gR$?-0:A-o<-#?-]%-,
,:.A-;A?-=/-/A-$%-.%-$%-2+2-0,
,.J-.%-.J-/A-.3-2&:-35%?-3,R%-2?,
,lR.-:.A-?J=-LJ.-?%?-o?-i3?-GA?-/A,
,:$<-;%-.%R?-0R-;R.-&J?-3-2!/-+R,
68
67
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
137
In dreams, a mental mind for which blue and so on appear
Arises without an eye. Like that,
Why is it not produced here for the blind
Through the ripening of its seed, in the absence of an eye sense power? (65)
According to you, the energy for the sixth has ripened
In dreams but not upon waking. If so,
Then, “Just as the ripened energy for the sixth does not exist here,
Similarly, it does not exist at the time of dreams.” Why is that
unreasonable? (66)
The absence of eyes is not the cause for this; like that,
Sleep is not the cause in dreams.
Because of that, in dreams also, eye things
[And] false possessors of objects are affirmed as the causes of
realization. (67)
Seeing each and every reply they have given
As equivalent to their thesis
Closes this dispute. The buddhas
Have never taught, “Things exist.” (68)
138
The Moon of Wisdom
,i=-:LR<-0-;A?-]-3:A-3/-%$-=?,
,!J%-<?-GA?-$%-?-$8A-3,R%-2-$%-,
,.J<-;%-$?3-(<-*J-2-3J.-0<-3,R%-,
,=R$-0-;A.-=-LJ.-0-2!/-KA<-<R,
69
,HR.-GA-.2%-]R:A-;=-i3?-)A-v-2,
,.J-v<-3A-#$-;A.-GA-;%-:I<-/,
,.J-28A/-;=-.J<-]R-$+.-&A$->R?-GA?,
,gR$?-:I<-.J-/A-2m/-0<-;%-3A-:I<,
,<2-<A2-.%-w/-.2%-0R-&/-35%?-=,
,(-:22-_%-=-;A-?$?-i$-]R-;%-,
,3.R<-/-)A-v<->J?-L-3J.-.J-28A/,
,]R-;%-3J.-&J?-.R/-:.A->J?-0<-IA?,
71
,$=-+J-$9%-3J.-:6B/-0-*A.-V=-8A%-,
,$*A?-GA?-!R%-0:A-$8/-.2%-.%R?-;R.-/,
,:.A-;A-;R.-0-$%-$A?->J?-0<-:I<,
,3-29%-2<-;%-;R.-&J?-L<-3A-<%-,
72
70
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
139
With a guru’s quintessential instructions, a yogin
Sees the ground filled by skeletons. What then?
There also, all three are seen to be unproduced
Because, it is taught, something wrong has been taken to mind. (69)
Like your objects for the awarenesses of sense powers,
If even [those objects] of the minds of ugliness were [true],
Then another’s awareness directed at that place
Would realize them; that also would not be false. (70)
Analogous to those who have sense powers affected by a disease of
the eye,
Where fluid flows, a hungry ghost is aware of pus.
In brief, understand this meaning: “Just as the object of cognition does
not exist,
Like that, awareness also does not exist.” (71)
Were there an other powered thing lacking an apprehended,
Free from apprehension, and empty of duality,
What would cognize its existence?
“Although not apprehended, it exists,” may not be claimed. (72)
140
The Moon of Wisdom
,.J-*A.-GA?-.J-MR%-2<-P2-3-;A/,
,$=-+J-KA-.?-S/-0-=?-:P2-/,
,3-P2-212-0<-L-KA<-2eR.-0-;A,
,3-P2-:.A-/A-12-0<-LJ.-0-3A/,
73
,<%-<A$-0-/A-P2-=-<$-3R.-GA,
,.J-v:%-S/-0:A-S/-0-<A$?-3A/-+J,
,$8/-KA<-3->J?-o.-=-*J?-0-28A/,
,$+/-5B$?-:.A?-/A-H.-0<-.$-G%-:)R3?,
,$%-KA<-$%-$A?-;=-MR%-I<-.J-=?,
,S/-0-:.A-$8/-%-=-;R.-3A/-0,
,.J-KA<-%-;A?-3,R%-~3-S/-:I<-+J,
,:.A-;%-:)A$-gJ/-,-~.-5=-=$?-;A/,
,.J-KA<-<%-<A$-;R.-0-3-;A/-/,
,HR.-GA-$8/-.2%-$%-$A?-:6B/-0<-:I<,
,LJ.-0R-=?-.%-L-2-$&A$-3A/-0?,
,.J-*A.-GA?-.J-:6B/-0<-<A$?-3-;A/,
76
74
75
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
141
That it experiences itself is not established.
Is it to be established at a later time through memory?
This nonestablished, which is stated in order to establish the
nonestablished,
Does not establish [it]. (73)
Let us suppose that a knower of itself is indeed established;
Even so, for memory to remember would not be reasonable
Because [of being] other, resembling what arose in a continuum that
is not cognized.
This reason destroys the qualifications. (74)
That this remembering is other
Than what experienced the object is not for me.
Therefore, one remembers, thinking, “I saw.”
This, moreover, is the way of the world’s conventions. (75)
Therefore, when a knower of itself does not exist,
What apprehends your other powered nature?
The agent, object, and action are not one; therefore,
It is not reasonable for that very [consciousness] to apprehend itself. (76)
142
The Moon of Wisdom
,$=-+J-*J-2-3J.-&A%-3->J?-0:A,
,2.$-&/-$8/-.2%-%R-2R:C-.%R?-;R.-/,
,$%-$A?-/-:.A-;R.-0<-3A-<A$?-0,
,$8/-=-3R-$>3-2?-$/R.-&A-8A$-2*=,
77
,$%-5K-$8/-.2%-&%-9.-;R.-3A/-/,
,!/-mR2-0-;A-o<-/A-$%-8A$-:I<,
,$8/-IA-v<-/-m?-=-($?-0-;A?,
,:)A$-gJ/-P$?-0:A-i3-28$-!/-G%-2_$
,aR2-.0R/-[-12-82?-GA-=3-=?-/A,
,KA-<R=-I<-=-8A-2:A-,2?-3J.-.R,
,.J-.$-!/-mR2-.J-*A.-2.J/-=?-*3?,
,.J-=?-*3?-0?-,<-0-:P2-;R.-3A/,
,,-~.-2.J/-0-,2?-?-I<-0-.%-,
,.R/-.3-2.J/-0-,2?-L%-I<-0-!J,
,.J-$*A?-i3-.LJ-$%-$A?-3A->J?-0,
,.J-/A-i3-gR$-=R$-0?-=3-%/-8$?,
78
79
80
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
143
If an unborn other powered having an unknown nature
Exists as a thing that is an entity,
Then why? For it to exist is not reasonable.
What harm has the child of a childless woman inflicted upon others? (77)
When the other powered does not exist even slightly,
What would be the cause for concealers?
If one accords with the others, due to attachment to substantial entities,
All the transactions customary in the world are lost. (78)
Those outside the paths of the honorable master N›g›rjuna
Have no method for peace.
They wither before truths for concealers and the truth of suchness.
Having withered, they do not accomplish liberation. (79)
Conventional truths serve as method and
Ultimate truth arises from method.
Those who do not understand the division into those two
Enter bad paths due to wrong thinking. (80)
144
The Moon of Wisdom
,)A-v<-HR.-GA?-$8/-.2%-.%R?-:.R.-v<,
,!/-mR2-G%-/A-2.$-$A?-#?-3-]%?,
,:V?-KA<-:.A-.$-3J.-G%-;R.-.R-8J?,
,:)A$-gJ/-%R<-L?-2.$-/A-5-2<-LJ.,
81
,)A-v<-1%-0R-%%?-/?-8A<-8$?-0,
,.P-2&R3-i3?-=-;R.-0-3A/-.J-v<,
,:)A$-gJ/-=-;%-3J.-/-.J-28A/-:.A,
,:)A$-gJ/-=?-G%-;R.-&J?-2.$-3A-5,
82
,$=-+J-HR.-=-:)A$-gJ/-3A-$/R.-/,
,:)A$-gJ/-*A.-vR?-:.A-/A-.$$-0<-IA?,
,HR.-.%-:)A$-gJ/-:.A<-/A-lR.-IA?-.%-,
,KA-/?-!R2?-w/-2.$-$A?-2!J/-0<-L,
,3%R/-I<-3%R/-KR$?-L%-(2-?J3?-.0:-;A?,
,YA.-$?3-i3->J?-43-.-$%-gR$?-0,
,g$-2.$-LJ.-0R-2!$-0-gR$?-KA<-.J?,
,LJ.-0-0R-/A-?J3?-43-;A/-0<-gR$?,
84
83
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
145
While you assert an other powered thing,
We have not affirmed even concealers.
For the result, although they do not exist, we say they exist;
We expound for the perspective of the world. (81)
Having abandoned the aggregates, they enter into peace;
For foe destroyers, they do not exist. Like that,
When they do not exist even for the world,
We do not say, “Similarly, these exist,” [contingent] upon the world. (82)
If the world does not harm you,
Then, contingent upon the world itself, negate these.
You and the world, debate here!
Afterward, I shall rely upon the powerful. (83)
Bodhisattvas on the Manifest, who are approaching,
Realize the three existences to be consciousness only.
In order to realize the negation of a permanent creative self, they
Realize the creator to be mind only. (84)
146
The Moon of Wisdom
.J-KA<-]R-w/-]R-/A-:1J=-L:A-KA<,
,=%-!<-$>J$?-3.R-.J-=?-!/-3HJ/-IA?,
,3-!J$?-%R-3,R/-<A-:)R3?-%$-<%-28A/-,
,hR-eJ-:.A-/A-.$R%?-0-2&.-KA<-$?%?,
85
,)A-28A/-<%-$A-2!/-2&R?-.J-.J-=?,
,3-!J$?-i3?-GA?-$%-9$-?R$?-.J-.$
,5?-0-.J-.$-LJ.-0R<-3-$9A$?-/?,
,o=-2?-?J3?-43-:)A$-gJ/-LJ.-0R<-$?%?,
,.J-*A.-o?-=-?%?-o?-2~.-)A-28A/,
,.J-28A/-?J3?-43-$4S<-I<-:)A$-gJ/-=,
,3.R-=?-?J3?-43-8J?-$?%?-$9$?-/A-:.A<,
,:$R$-0-.J-v<-3.R-;A-.R/-3-;A/, 87
,$=-+J-:.A-.$-?J3?-43-8J?-3HJ/-/?,
,.J-=?-$9$?-*A.-.$$-0<-36.-/-/A,
,a<-;%-.J-=?-2.$-*A.-(J/-0R?-?J3?,
,$+A-3$-=?-=?-*J?-0<-&A-KA<-$?%?,
88
86
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
147
Therefore, to enable the awareness of the intelligent to increase,
In the SÒtra of the Descent into Laºka the All Knowing One
Uttered this speech, vajra in nature, that destroys the lofty mountains
of the forders
In order that the intention may be discerned. (85)
In their own treatises,
The forders propound the person and so on.
Not seeing those as the creator,
The victorious one spoke of mind only as the creator of the world. (86)
Buddha is explained as expansion into suchness;
Like that, for the world where mind only is principal,
In the sÒtra mind only was said; that form is negated here
Is not the sÒtra’s meaning. (87)
If, knowing, “These are mind only,”
He refuted form itself in that [sÒtra],
Why did the great being again in that [sÒtra] say
That mind is produced from bewilderment and actions? (88)
148
The Moon of Wisdom
,?J3?-*A.-GA?-/A-?J3?-&/-:)A$-gJ/-.%-,
,$R.-GA-:)A$-gJ/->A/-+-$-5S$?-:$R.,
,:PR-2-3-=?-=?-=?-*J?-0<-$?%?,
,?J3?-%%?-/?-/A-=?-G%-;R.-3-;A/,
89
,$=-+J-$9$?-;R.-3R.-GA-.J-=-/A,
,?J3?-28A/-LJ.-0-0R-*A.-;R.-3-;A/,
,.J?-/-?J3?-=?-$8/-0:A-LJ.-0-0R,
,2^R$-$A-$9$?-/A-2!$-0-3-;A/-/R,
,:)A$-gJ/-0-;A-.J-*A.-=-$/?-=,
,1%-0R-:)A$-gJ/-P$?-+J-s-(<-;R.,
,.J-*A.-;J->J?-:(<-2<-:.R.-0-/,
,i=-:LR<-0-=-.J-s-:L%-3A-:I<,
90
91
,$9$?-3J.-/-/A-?J3?-;R.-3-:6B/-&A$
,?J3?-;R.-*A.-/:%-$9$?-3J.-3-:6B/-8A$
,.J-.$->J?-<2-5=-3.R<-?%?-o?-GA?,
,35%?-0<-%%?->A%-3%R/-0:A-(R?-=?-$?%?,
92
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
149
Mind itself sets out the extremely various
Worlds of sentient beings and worlds serving as vessels.
It is said that all migrators without omission are produced from actions;
Mind having been abandoned, actions are no more. (89)
Suppose that form does exist; even so,
The creator itself is not there, as it is with mind.
Thus, a creator other than mind
Has been refuted, but form has not been negated. (90)
For those who abide in worldly suchness,
The aggregates customary in the world, all five, exist.
When the wisdom of suchness is asserted to dawn,
For a yogin, the five will not arise. (91)
Where form does not exist, do not conceive that mind exists.
When mind exists, do not conceive that form does not exist.
In the sÒtras on the way of incisive knowledge, the Buddha
Abandoned them equivalently, and in the Manifest Knowledge
he taught them. (92)
150
The Moon of Wisdom
,2.J/-$*A?-<A3-0-:.A-.$-2>A$-/?-G%-,
,HR.-GA-m?-/A-2!$-0?-:P2-3A-:I<,
,.J-KA<-.J-v:A-<A3-0?-.%R?-$.R.-/?,
,.J-*A.-3-*J?-:)A$-gJ/-*J?-<A$-L,
93
,3.R-#J-$%-=?-KA-<R=-$%-;R.-3A/,
,?J3?-/A-$-5S$?-$%-%R-8J?-$?%?-0,
,$9$?-=->A/-+-($?-$%-.J-.$-=,
,$9$?-2^R$-0-!J-.J-;%-S%-.R/-*A.,
94
,:.A-/A-!R/-0?-S%-.R/-*A.-$?%?->A%-,
,:.A-/A-S%-.R/-*A.-.-<A$?-0?-:,.,
,i3-0-.J-v:A-3.R-#J-$8/-;%-/A,
,S%-.R/-*A.-.-=%-:.A?-$?=-2<-LJ.,
95
,>J?-L-3J.-/->J?-0-2?=-2-/A,
,2.J-]$-fJ.-&J?-?%?-o?-i3?-GA?-$?%?-,
,>J?-L-3J.-/->J?-0-2!$-:P2-0?,
,.%-0R<->J?-L-.$$-0-36.-0-;A/,
96
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
151
These stages of the two truths having been demolished,
Your substantial entity will have been negated, due to which it will not
be established.
Because of that, by such stages one must know that, from the beginning,
things
Are not produced in suchness and are produced for the world. (93)
In some sÒtras it was said,
“External appearances do not exist; mind appears as the varieties.”
Form is refuted for those exceptionally passionate about form;
They too are just meanings that require interpretation. (94)
This, the Teacher said, is just a meaning that requires interpretation;
That it is feasible just as a meaning that requires interpretation is due
to reasoning.
Also other sÒtras similar in aspect
This scripture clarifies as just meanings that require interpretation. (95)
“When objects of cognition do not exist, the elimination of cognition
Will easily be found,” the buddhas have taught.
When objects of cognition do not exist, the negation of cognition will
be established; therefore,
First, he refuted objects of cognition. (96)
152
The Moon of Wisdom
,.J-v<-=%-$A-=R-o?->J?-L?-+J,
,3.R-$%-.J-*A.-3-;A/-2>.-.R/-&/,
,S%-.R/-$?%?-0:%-gR$?-/?-S%-L-8A%-,
,!R%-*A.-.R/-&/-%J?-.R/->J?-0<-IA?,
97
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
In that way, one comes to know the structure of the scriptures.
Whichever sÒtras have a meaning that explains what is not suchness
Have stated a meaning that requires interpretation; realizing that, one
will be led further.
Those having the meaning of emptiness should be known to be of
definitive meaning. (97)
153
,$*A?-0-=-KR$?-}-3-.%-, .J-.$$-0-$*A?, .%-0R-=, $?%-<2-GA.R/-i3-0<-28$-0-.%-, .J?-<%-=$?-GA-i3-$8$-2!/-0:R, ,.%-0R=, o=-Y?-GA?-YA.-$?3-i3->J?-43-.-gR$?-0:A-o-35/, KA-.R/-3J.G%->J?-0:A-o-2!/-0:R,
The ancillary refutation of the system of the
Proponents of Perceptiona (409:5)1
This has two parts:
1 Showing the earlier position
2 The refutation of that
1 Showing the earlier position (409:5)
This has two parts:
1 The presentation of the meaning of the scriptures
2 Showing their presentation of their own system
1.1 The presentation of the meaning of the scriptures (409:5)
This has two parts:
1 The reason why heirs to the victorious one realize the three existencesb to be consciousnessc only
2 Showing the cause for cognition despite the absence of external
objectsd
a
b
c
d
rnam par rig pa, vijñapti
srid pa gsum
rnam shes, vijñ›na
phyi don
156
The Moon of Wisdom
,.%-0R-/A,
,$9%-2-3J.-0<-:6B/-0-3-3,R%-8A%-,
,YA.-$?3-i3->J?-43-.-<2-gR$?-0?,
,>J?-<2-=-$/?-L%-(2-?J3?-.0:-.J?,
,i3->J?-43-.-.J-*A.-gR$?-0<-:I<,
45
,i3-<A$-+-5-2-.$-$A?-.2-3:A-=$?-)A-{.-2!/-0-3A-29R.-0?-<%-$AgR$-29R:C-=$?-:)R$-0<-LJ.-0-.J-:.A<-2?=-2:A-(J.-.-2eR.-/, >J?<2-GA-1-<R=-+-KA/-0-|R3-0-=-$/?-0:A-L%-(2-?J3?-.0:-?-S$-0-2.J?-(R?-i3?-GA-.R/-.3-0:A-.J-#R-/-*A.-i3->J?-43-.-gR$?-0<-:I<-+J,
?J3?-=-29%-2-3J.-0<-gR$?-0?-.J<-2vR?-GA-:6B/-0-;%-3-3,R%-8A%-,
YA.-$?3-:.A-.$-KA-<R=-.R/-IA?-.2J/-0<->J?-0-43-3R, ,8J?-;/-.$R3?-0-=?-$9%-:6B/-.%-V=-2:A-i3-0<->J?-0-2eR.-3J.-43-.-?R-?R<%-<A$-$A-5=-IA?-<2-+-gR$?-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
157
1.1.1 The reason why heirs to the victorious one realize the
three existences to be consciousness only (409:6)
In the absence of an apprehended object,a an apprehender b is not
seen, and
Due to realizing superbly that the three existences are only
consciousness,
The bodhisattva abiding in incisive knowledgec
Will realize suchness to be only consciousness. (45)
Those who propound [all phenomena] to be perception cannot endure
the system of the Middle Way just as it is taught; therefore, they posit a
system made by their own thought.d In order to dispel [that system], we
express it here. A bodhisattva on the sixth grounde who abides in meditationf upon transcendent incisive knowledge will realize the ultimateg
suchness of phenomena to be only consciousness. This is because, due to
realizing that an apprehended object is not present in mind,h they also do
not see an apprehender that is contingent upon that [apprehended
object], and through familiarizing for a long time [with the view that],
“These three existences, devoid of external objects, are only cognition,”
in the manner of something knowing itself individually they superbly realize [the three existences] to be only inexpressible consciousness that is free
from apprehended and apprehender.2
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
gzung ba, gr›hya
’dzin pa, gr›ha
shes rab, prajñ›
rnam par rtog pa, vikalpa/kalpan›/vitarka
sa, bhÒmi
sgom pa, bh›van›
don dam pa, param›rtha
sems, chitta
158
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-/A,
,)A-v<-_%-$A?-2{=-2?-o-35S-/A,
,(J-=?-(-_2?-:L%-2-.J-28A/-.,
,!/-IA-?-2R/-!/-$8A-8J?-L-=?,
,<%-$A-/?-0?-i3->J?-43-8A$-:L%-, 46
,&A-.R/-3J.-0<-i3->J?-43-.-9.-/-$9$?-?R$?-.R/-$%-$A-i3->J?-)Av<-*J-8J-/, )A-v<-_%-$A?-2{=-2?-o-35S-/A-(J/-0R-=?-(-_2?-(J-(%i3?-nJ/-)A-v-2<-:L%-2-.J-28A/-.-!/-/?-*R/-3R%?-0:A-(R?-!/-IA-?2R/-,3?-&.-0-!/-$8A-i3->J?-8J?-L-2-,R$-3J.-/?-8$?-0-{.-&A$$A?-2o.-0-$9%-:6B/-.-8J/-0:A-2$-($?-;R%?-?-(A/-0-=?-2.$-*A.GA-.%R?-0R-;R.-0-,R2-0-:$$-28A/-0?, !/-$8A-=-2$-($?-GA-H.-0<<%-$A-i3-0-.%-eJ?-?-:VJ=-2:A-i3->J?-*J-2:A-o<-I<-0-<%-$A-/?-0-=;R%?-?-(A/-0:A-nJ/-IA?-3-.$-0-$8/-.2%-$A-i3->J?-43-8A$-:L%-2*A.-=-LA?-0?-$9%-:6B/-.-gR$-$A, >J?-0-=?-,-..-0:A-$9%-2-/A-&%9.-G%-;R.-0-3-;A/-/R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
159
1.1.2 Showing the cause for cognition despite the absence of
external objects (410:2)
From the great ocean stirred by wind,
Waves arise; like that,
From the seeds of all, called the “base of all,”a
Due to its energy,b,3 only consciousness arises. (46)
Someone may ask, “If, in the absence of any external objects,c [the three
existences] are exhausted as only consciousness, how are consciousnesses
to which objects such as formsd appear produced?” From the great ocean
stirred by wind, great and small waves arise according to conditions.e Like
that, from that which has all the seeds of all thoroughly afflicted phenomenaf—called “the consciousness that is the base of all,”g abiding from
time without beginning [yet only] a continuum of moments, [where] the
predispositionsh for adhering to apprehended and apprehender ripen thoroughly—its own thingsi achieve existencej and also cease. Therefore,
particular predispositions in the base of all serve as the causes for the production of consciousness that accords in aspectk with [the predisposition].
Due to the condition of thoroughly ripening into its energy, only consciousness, an impurity that is in the power of others,l arises; children conceive [it] to be apprehended and apprehender, but an apprehended object
that is different from cognition does not exist even slightly.4
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
kun gzhi, ›laya
nus pa, shakya/shakti
don, artha
gzugs, rÒpa
rkyen, pratyaya
kun nas nyon mongs kyi chos
kun gzhi rnam shes, ›layavijñ›na
bag chags, v›san›
dngos po, bh›va/vastu
yod pa, bh›va
rnam pa, ›k›ra
gzhan dbang, paratantra
160
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-/A,
,.J-KA<-$8/-IA-.2%-$A-%R-2R-$%-,
,.%R?-0R-2+$?-0<-;R.-0:A-o<-:I<-8A%-,
,KA-<R=-$9%-2-3J.-0<-:L%-:I<-=,
,;R.-.%-3R?-!/-;=-3A/-<%-28A/-;R.,
47
,!/-$8A-;R.-0:A-12-LJ.-/A-$?%-<2-GA?-:.A-v<-i3-0<-28$-$R-8J?P$?-0-.J:A-KA<-2eR.-/, $8/-IA-.2%-$A-%R-2R-$%-8A$-2.$-$*A?-GA.%R?-0R-1R-2+$?-0<-;R.-0:A-o<-:I<-8A%-, .J<-#?-]%?-.$R?-+J,
gR$-0:A-S-2-!/-IA-$8A<-:.R.-0:A-KA<-+J, $8/-.-:O=-$8A-3J.-0?:$:-;%-2.$-$*A?-?-:O=-2<-3A-<%-2:A-KA<, .0J<-/-4=-.-:O=-0,$-0:A-o-.%-, 23-0-=-?R$?-0<-:O=-0:A-o-?-?R$?-=-3-2vR?-0<3#:-?R$?-?-3A-:L%-2-28A/-/R, ,.J?-/-$8/-.2%-:.A-/A-$?3-.-28$!J, KA-<R=-29%-2-3J.-0<-<%-*A.-2$-($?-GA-.2%-$A?-$*A?-$%-&/-.:L%-2<-:I<-=, 2.$-$*A?-?-1R-2+$?-0:A-$8A<-m?-?-;R.-0-.%-,
3R?-0-1-gR$-!/-IA-;=-3-;A/-0:A-<%-28A/-.-;R.-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
161
1.2 Showing their presentation of their own system (411:1)
Therefore, an other powered entity
Serves as the cause for things that exist as designations:
It arises in the absence of external, apprehended objects,
Exists, and exists as a nature that is not an object a for all
elaborations.b (47)
They claim that “the proof for the existence of the base of all is presented
like this by the scriptures.” Therefore, to explain this, an other powered
entity serves as the cause for the fantasized existence of things that are the
two selvesc and must be affirmed as that because of being asserted as the
base for the entire web of thought. This is because, otherwise, since there
would be no base for mistakes, it would be unsuitable to mistake anything
at all for the two selves. For example, a rope can be mistaken for a snake,
and earth and so forth can be mistaken for a vase and so forth, but without the contingent cause, space and so forth would not be mistaken [for a
vase]....5
Therefore, the other poweredd is posited as threefold because (1) in the
absence of an external, apprehended object, due to the power of predispositions it arises having dualistic appearance;e (2) as the base for the fantasy of the two selves, it exists substantially;f and (3) it exists as a nature
that is not an object for all elaborations—terms and thoughts.6
a
b
c
d
e
f
yul, vi˝haya
spros pa, prapañcha
bdag, ›tman
gzhan dbang, paratantra
gnyis snang, dvayapratibh›sa
rdzas yod, dravyasat
162
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=-.$$-0-.%R?-.%-, 2!$-0-=-:$=-2-%%-2:R, ,.%-0R-=,
KA-.R/-3J.-0:A->J?-0-.$$ ,3R?-0-!/-IA-;=-3A/-0<-;R.-0-.$$ ,!/mR2-0:A-o<-;R.-0-.$$-0-.%-28A:R, ,.%-0R-=, kA-=3-IA-3,/-.0J.$$ ,<2-<A2-GA-3,/-.0J-.$$ ,!J%-<?-GA-3,/-.0J-.$$ ,:O=0:A-.0J-$8/-;%-.$$ ,.R/-2#-2-.%-s:R, ,.%-0R-=, kA-=3-.-?J3?3A-:P2, S/-0?-:P2-/-;=-;%-:P2, .J:A-*J?-%R%-$A-=/-.$$-0$?3-3R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
163
2 The refutation of that (412:5)
This has two parts:
1 The actual refutation
2 Abandoning contradictions with regard to having made the
refutation
2.1 The actual refutation (412:6)
This has four parts:
1 Refutation of cognition in the absence of external objects
2 Refutation of a nondual other powered that is substantially established
3 Refutation of not being an object for all elaborations
4 Refutation of the existence [of the other powered] as the cause for
concealers
2.1.1 Refutation of cognition in the absence of external
objects (413:1)
This has five parts:
1 Refutation of dreams as a concordant example
2 Refutation of a disease of the eye as a concordant example
3 Refutation of skeletons as a concordant example
4 Refutation of other examples for mistakes
5 Summary of the topic
2.1.1.1 Refutation of dreams as a concordant example (413:1)
This has three parts:
1 The mind is not established in dreams
2 Were it established by memory, the object would be established also
3 Refutation of the reply that abandons those flaws
164
The Moon of Wisdom
,.%-0R-/A,
,KA-<R=-3J.-?J3?-.0J-/A-$%-.-;R.,
,kA-=3-)A-28A/-8J-/-.J-2?3-L,
,$%-5K-%-=-kA-=3-/-;%-?J3?,
,;R.-3A/-.J-5K-HR.-GA-.0J-;R.-3A/,
48
,;=-3J.-0:A->J?-0-3A-YA.-.J, i3-0<->J?-0-/A-;=-<A$-0?-<2-+-KJ-2:AKA<-KA-<R=-IA-;=-3J.-G%-?J3?-;R.-0:A-.0J-/A-$%-.-;R.-&J?-SA?-0-=-kA=3-)A-v-2-28A/-+J, #%-3A$-(%-%<-$*A.-=R$-0-/-.J<-\%-0R-(J:A-H:OA$?-0-kA?-0:A-5K-;=-)A-v-2-3J.-.J, .J<-.J->R%-2-3J.-G%-.J<-:6B/0:A-kA-=3-IA->J?-0-;R.-0-28A/-/R-8J-/, kA-=3-/-;=-3J.-0:A->J?-0-;R.3J.-.J-2?3-L:3-2g$-L-;A/-+J, $%-5K-.2-3-0-%-=-?.-0:A-{2?-?-39.-kA-=3-/-;%-?J3?-/A-;=-v<-;R.-3A/-.J:A-5K-i3-<A$-0-HR.-GA?-;=3J.-0<->J?-0-;R.-0:A-.0J-;R.-0-3-;A/-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
165
2.1.1.1.1.The mind is not established in dreams (413:2)
Where is the example for a mind without an external [object]?
When they reply, “Just like dreams,” that is to be considered.
For us, mind also does not exist in dreams;
Thus, your example does not exist. (48)
Cognition without an object is not possible. We ask, “Consciousness is
thoroughly distinguished by knowing a objects; therefore, where is the
example for a mind that exists even without an external object?” They
reply, “Just like dreams. When we fall asleep in a small room and dream
of a herd of elephants gathering there, the objects do not exist in just that
way. They do not fit there, but the dreaming cognition that apprehends
[them] there does exist.” In a dream, is there cognition without an object,
or not? That is to be considered or investigated because for us, Proponents
of the Middle Way,b not only in the waking state but also in dreams, mind,
like the object, does not exist. Thus, Proponents of Perception, your example of cognition that exists without an object does not exist.7
a rig pa, vidy›
b dbu ma pa, m›dhyamika
166
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-/A,
,$=-+J-?.-5K-kA-=3-S/-=?-;A.,
,;R.-/-KA-<R=-;=-;%-.J-28A/-:I<,
,)A-v<-HR.-GA-%?-3,R%-~3-S/-0,
,.J-:S-KA-<R=-=-;%-;R.-0-;A/, 49
,;%-kA-=3-.-:O=->J?-;R.-.J, 3J.-/-?.-5K-kA-=3-.-MR%-2-S/-0<-3A:I<-2:A-KA<-8J-/, 3-H2-0-/A-$=-+J-?.-5K-kA-=3-IA->J?-0-:O=-0-MR%2:A-S/-0-=?-;A.-;R.-0<-P2-/-KA-<R=-;=-;%-.J-28A/-;R.-0<-:I<-+J,
)A-v<-HR.-GA?-?.-0:A-{2?-/-%?-3,R%-%R-~3-.-kA-=3-IA->J?-0-S/-0=?->J?-0-;R.-0-.J-:S<-\%-(J/-?R$?-KA-<R=-IA-;=-MR%-2-=-;%-S/-0;A/-0:A-KA<, .J-;%-3-H2-/->J?-0:%-;R.-0<-3A-:P2-0R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
167
2.1.1.1.2 Were it established by memory, the object would be
established also (413:5)
If remembering the dream when awake entails that mind
Existed, the external object [existed] as well.
You remember the experience, “I see”;
Like that, the external [is remembered] also. (49)
They may also say, “Mistaken cognitiona exists in the dream because, if it
were not, experience in the dream would not be remembered when
awake.” [We reply], “There is no pervasion.”b If remembering the experience of mistaken cognition in the dream when awake entails that mindc
is established as having existed, the external object existed as well. This is
because, when awake, you remember the dreaming cognition’s experience, “I see,” entailing that cognition existed, and like that, the experience of external objects, the elephants and so forth, is remembered also.
If there is no pervasion, then cognition is not established as having existed
either.8
a khrul shes, bhr›ntijñ›na
b khyab pa, vy›pti
c yid, manas
168
The Moon of Wisdom
,$?3-0-=-*J?-%R%-$A-=/-.%-, .J-.$$-0-$*A?,
,.%-0R-/A,
,$=-+J-$*A.-/%-3A$-]R-3A-YA.-0?,
,;R.-3A/-;A.-GA->J?-0-#R-/-;R.,
,.J-;A-i3-0-KA-<R=-*A.-.-8J/,
,kA-=3-)A-v-.J-28A/-:.A<-:.R.-/,
50
,$=-+J-$*A.-GA-/%-/-$9$?-?R$?-KA-<R=-IA-;=-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, .J<$*A.-GA?-3A$-]R-?R$?-*3?-0<-L?-0?-.2%->J?-i3?-3A-YA.-0<-LJ.-0.J-*A.-GA-KA<, :R/-G%-$*A.-GA?-2a.-0:A-;A.-GA->J?-0-;=-.-$%-2-#R-/;R.-.J, >J?-0-.J-;A-i3-0-=-kA-=3-GA->J?-0?-KA-<R=-*A.-.-8J/-0<-LJ.-0:AKA<-kA-=3-.-;=-3J.-0<->J?-0-;R.-0-)A-v-2-.J-28A/-.-:.A<-:.R.-.R-8J-/,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
169
2.1.1.1.3 Refutation of the reply that abandons those
flaws (415:3)
This has two parts:
1 The reply that abandons those flaws
2 Refutation of that
2.1.1.1.3.1 The reply that abandons those flaws (415:3)
When they say, “In sleep, the eye’s awarenessa is not possible;
therefore,
[External objects] do not exist. Only mental cognition exists.
Its aspect is regarded as just external.
Just like dreams, similarly here, [we] assert...” (50)
When they say, “There, in sleep, external objects such as forms do not
exist because, due to sleep, the eye’s awareness and so forth have withered,
and therefore the sense cognitions are rendered impossible. Even so, only
mental cognition, polluted by sleep and appearing as objects, exists.
Because the dreaming cognition regards the aspect of that cognition as
just external, in dreams, while objects do not exist, cognition exists. Just
like that, similarly here, [we] assert...”9
a blo, buddhi
170
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=, kA-=3-.-#3?-2&R-2o.-0R-,3?-&.-2m/-0<-2!/, 5=.J-?.-0:A-$/?-{2?-=-;%-35%?, .J?-/-.R/->J?-;R.-3J.-.0J-.R/35%?-0<-2!/-0-$?3-3R,
,.%-0R-/A,
,)A-v<-HR.-GA-KA-;=-kA-=3-.,
,3-*J?-.J-28A/-;A.-G%-*J?-3-;A/,
,3A$-.%-3A$-$A-;=-.%-.J?-*J.-?J3?,
,$?3-0R-,3?-&.-G%-/A-2m/-0-;A/,
51
,i-?R$?-z$-3-$?3-0R:%-*J-2-3J.,
52 !
,)A-v<-i3-<A$-0-HR.-GA-=$?-=-kA-=3-.-KA-$9$?-?R$?-;=-3-*J?-0-.J28A/-;A.->J?-G%-*J?-0-3-;A/-+J, .J-.$-*J?-3-*J?-o-35/-35%?-0:AKA<-+J, kA-=3-IA-:O=-%R<-/A-$*A?-!-;R.-=, ?.-/-$*A?-!-3J.-0:AKA<, :R/-G%-?.-5K-$9$?-3,R%-2-/, 3A$-.%-$9$?-.%-i3->J?$?3-.3A$?-0-28A/-kA-=3-.:%-;=-;R%?-?-$&R.-0-/-3A$-.%-3A$-$A;=-.%-.J?-2*J.-0:A-?J3?-$?3-0R-,3?-&.-G%-/A-:.?-0<-:O=-$%.J:A-%R<-;R.-0-v<-$%-;%-, .J.-/-.J<-3A$-.%-$9$?-3J.-0-28A/?J3?-G%-3J.-0?-$?3-$-2m/-0-;A/-/R, ,.J-v<-kA-=3-.-i-2-.%?R$?-0?-1-.%-i-2:A-i3->J?-/?, ;A.-.%-(R?-.%-;A.-GA-i3->J?-GA2<-;=-.2%-i3->J?-$?3-0R-z$-3-i3?-G%-*J-2-3J.-.J, $%-43-.-/A,3?-&.-35%?-=, .J.-/-/A-,3?-&.-G%-!R%-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
171
2.1.1.1.3.2 Refutation of that (415:5)
This has three parts:
1 Showing that, in dreams, all eighteen elements are false
2 That mode is similar also in the waking state
3 Showing that, therefore, the existence or nonexistence of the object
and the cognition is similar in the example and the exemplified
2.1.1.1.3.2.1 Showing that, in dreams, all eighteen elementsa
are false (415:6)
Just as your external objects were not produced in dreams,
Like that, mind also was not produced.
The eye, the eye’s object, and the mind they generate,
All three are false. (51)
The three of the remainder—the ear and so forth—also are not
produced. (52a)
Just as in your system, Proponents of Perception, objects such as external
forms were not produced in dreams, like that, mental cognition also was
not produced because the reasons for having been produced or not having been produced are similar. This is because, for the mistaken perspective of dreams, both exist and, when we awaken, neither exists. However,
once awake, when forms are seen, the three—eye, form, and consciousness—are observed. Similarly, in dreams also, when objects are determined, all three—the eye, the eye’s object, and the mind they
generate—gather and, for the perspective of that mistaken appearance,
appear to exist. Even so, when analyzed, just as the eye and the form do
not exist there, mind too does not exist, Therefore, all three are false. Like
that, in dreams, all three—object, sense power,b and consciousness—of
the remainder—the ear and, [as indicated] by “and so forth,” sound and
ear consciousness up to mind, phenomena, and mental consciousness—
also are not produced because, as mere appearance, all are similar and,
when analyzed, all are empty.c,10
a khams, dh›tu
b dbang po, indriya
c stong pa, shÒnya
172
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-/A,
,kA-=3-)A-v-.J-28A/-?.-:.A<-;%-,
,.%R?-i3?-2m/-;A/-?J3?-.J-;R.-3-;A/,
,,R.-;=-3J.-&A%-.2%-0R-i3?-G%-3J., 52 #$%
,kA-=3-/-$?3-$-3-P2-0-*A.-GA?-?.-0-/:%-$?3-$-P2-0-2^R$-0<L-2-/A, kA-=3-/-;=-.2%->J?-0-$?3-$-2m/-0-)A-v<-.J-28A/-?.-0:A{2?-:.A<-;%-$9$?-/?-i3-3HJ/-IA-2<-IA-.%R?-0R-i3?-2m/-0-;A/&A%-, .%R?-0R-.J-.$-.3A$?-LJ.-?J3?-.J-;R.-0-3A/-=, .J:A-.3A$?-L:A,R.-;=-3J.-&A%-, gJ/-.2%-0R-i3?-G%-2.J/-0-$*A?-!<-$%-8J/-v<P2-0-3J.-.J,
,$?3-0-/A,
,:.A-/-)A-v<-?.-28A/-)A-YA.-.,
,3A-?.-.J-YA.-.J-=-$?3-0R-;R.,
,?.-0<-I<-/-$?3-(<-;R.-3A/-v<,
,$+A-3$-$*A.-?.-=?-.J-.J-28A/-/R,
53
,:)A$-gJ/-:.A-/-)A-v<-?.-0:A-$/?-{2?-/-3-<A$-0:A-$*A.-(J/-IA?;=-.2%-i3->J?-$?3-;R.-0-.J-28A/-)A-YA.-.-:U=-IA-?J3?-L%-$*A.(%-=?-3-?.-0-.J-YA.-.-kA-0R:C-*J?-2-.J-=-;=-.2%-i3->J?-$?3-0R-;R..J, $?3-.-$%-2-;R.-&A%-, $%-2-v<-8J/-0-;%-;R.-0:A-KA<, ,.J?-/$8%-:.A?-G%-kA-=3-.-#3?-2&R-2o.-0R-,-~.-.:%-;R.-3*3-.-!R/-03A/-IA, ?.-3-?.-GA-#3?-2&R-2o.-0R-.R/-$/?-=-2.J/-m/-H.-3J.-.2m/-3*3-#R-/<-2!/-0-;A/-/R, ,$*A.-(%-?.-0<-I<-/-kA-=3-IA-
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
173
2.1.1.1.3.2.2 That mode is similar also in the waking
state (419:4)
Just as in dreams, so also here, when awake:
Things are false, that mind does not exist,
The object of [its] operation does not exist, and the sense powers
also do not exist. (52b-d)
That very nonestablishment of all three in dreams refutes the establishment of all three also when awake. Just as in dreams all three—object,
sense power, and cognition—are false, so here also in the waking time,
things from forms up to knowledge of [all] aspects are false; that mind
observing those things does not exist; the object of [its] operation, which
is to say, what it observes, does not exist, and also the supports, the sense
powers, are not established anywhere among the two truthsa in the way
they appear and are conceived to be.11
2.1.1.1.3.2.3 Showing that, therefore, the existence or
nonexistence of the object and the cognition is similar in
the example and the exemplified (420:1)
Just like here while awake,
So long as one does not awaken, the three exist for that [dreamer].
When one awakens, all three do not exist. Similarly,
Due to an awakening from the sleep of bewilderment,b these
resemble those. (53)
Here in this world during the waking time, due to the great sleep of ignorance,c the three—object, sense power, and consciousness—exist. Just like
[that], so long as we do not awaken from the small sleep, a superficial mental factor,d for that dreamer the three—object, sense power, and consciousness—exist because they appear as three and one holds tightly to
them in accordance with the appearance.12
a
b
c
d
bden pa, satya
gti mug, moha
ma rig pa, avidy›
sems byung, chaitta
174
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0R-;R.-0-3A/-0-v<-$+A-3$-3-<A$-0:A-$*A.-(J/-?.-0-=?-(R?.LA%?-3%R/-.-I<-/-:U=-IA-:O=-o?-3-2a.-0:A-$?3-0R-.J-kA-=3-IA$?3-0R-.J-28A/-.-;R.-0-3A/-/R, ,.J?-/-;=-3J.-i3->J?-G%-3A-<A$?-?R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
175
Therefore, this text does not teach that the eighteen elements in dreams
equally exist, [not] even conventionally. Rather, it teaches that the eighteen elements of waking and not waking do not differ with regard to the
abiding of objects—[some] true, [the others] false—for they are equally
and only false. When one awakens from the small sleep, the three of
dreams do not exist. Similarly, when the element of qualitiesa becomes
manifest due to an awakening from the great sleep of ignorant bewilderment, these three not polluted by superficial causes of errorb resemble
those three of dreams in not existing. Therefore, it is not reasonable [to
assert] consciousness lacking an object.13
a chos kyi dbyings, dharmadh›tu
b ’phral gyi ‘khrul rgyu
176
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=, .$$-0-.%R?-.%-, .J:A-*J?-%R%-$A-=/-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-=, ;=->J?-2.J/-m/-35%?-0-.%-, .J-v<-3A/-/-$8/-IA?-G%3,R%-2<-,=-2-$*A?,
,.%-0R-/A,
,.2%-0R-<2-<A2-2&?-0-]R-$%-$A?,
,<2-<A2-3,-=?-0-i3?-$%-3,R%-2,
,.J-]R-=-vR?-$*A?-(<-2.J/-0-!J,
,.R/-$?=-3,R%-=-$*A?-!:%-2m/-0-;A/,
54
,;%-KA-<R=-3J.-G%-i3->J?-;R.-.J, <2-<A2-&/-IA?-;R.-0-3A/-0:A-0->.?R$?-.3A$?-0:A-KA<-8J-/, 3A-:,.-.J, kA-=3-#R-/-.%-:S-2:A-KA<-+J,
3A$-$A-.2%-0R-<2-<A2-2&?-0:A-]R-$%-$A?-<2-<A2-GA?-2a.-0:A-3,=?-0->.-?R$?-i3?-$%-3,R%-2-.J-]R-:O=-0-.J-=-2vR?-/?-0->.-GAi3-0:%-$%-2?, ;=-;=-&/-$*A?-&<-2.J/-0-!J-<2-<A2-.%-V=-2:A.R/-$?=-3,R%-=-$*A?-!:%-2m/-0-;A/-0:A-KA<-+J, ;=-3J.-0:A-;=&/-IA->J?-0-3A-:P2-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
177
2.1.1.2 Refutation of a disease of the eye as a concordant
example (423:1)
This has two parts:
1 The actual refutation
2 Refutation of the reply that abandons those flaws
2.1.1.2.1 The actual refutation (423:1)
This has two parts:
1 Objects and consciousnesses are either similarly true or similarly false
2 Were that not so, it would follow that others would see [strands of
hair] also
2.1.1.2.1.1 Objects and consciousnesses are either similarly
true or similarly false (423:2)
The mind of a sense power affected by diseasea
Sees hairb due to the power of the disease.
Contingent upon that mind, both are true.
For one who sees objects clearly, both are false. (54)
They may say, “Consciousness exists despite the nonexistence of external
[objects] because someone with diseased eyes observes strands of hair c that
do not exist and so forth.” This is not feasibled because it resembles dreams
and dreams alone. Why? The mind of an eye sense power affected by disease sees strands of hair and so forth due to the power of pollution by the
disease. Contingent upon that mistaken mind, the aspect of strands of
hair does appear. Therefore, both the object and the possessor of the
object e are true. For one who, free from disease, sees objects clearly, both
are false. This is because, in the absence of an object, a cognition possessing an object is not established.14
a
b
c
d
e
rab rib
skra
skra shad
’thad pa
yul can
178
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-/A,
,$=-+J->J?-L-3J.-0<-]R-;R.-/,
,0-.J:A-;=-.%-3A$-/A-eJ?-:VJ=-0:A,
,<2-<A2-3J.-=:%-0->.-]R<-:I<-/,
,.J-v-3-;A/-.J-KA<-.J-;R.-3A/,
55
,3-P2-2R-8J-/-P2-0<-2!/-0-/A, $=-+J->J?-L:A-;=-0->.-3J.-0<-.J<$%-2:A-]R-;R.-/-0->.-.J:A-;=-.%-, 3A$-/A-eJ?-?-:VJ=-2:A-:#<-$8R%=-?R$?-0:A-;=-.J<-<2-<A2-3J.-0:A-3A$-&/-IA?-3A$-$+.-0-/-;%-.J-.%:S-2<-0->.-.-$%-2:A-]R-*J-2<-:I<-+J, ;=-3J.-0<-35%?-0:A-KA<,
.J-v<-,=-2-=?, <2-<A2-3J.-0-=-0-]R-*J-2-.J-v<-3-;A/-0-.J:A-KA<-;=3J.-0:A-;=-&/-IA->J?-0-.J-*J-2-/A-;R.-0-3-;A/-/R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
179
2.1.1.2.1.2 Were that not so, it would follow that others
would see [strands of hair] also (423:4)
Were a mind to exist while the object of cognitiona does not,
Where the hair and the eyes come into relationship,
For those lacking the disease also there would be a mind [appearing
as] strands of hair.
Because it is not like that, there is no [production]. (55)
They may reply, “[The reason] is not established.”15 [In response, we] show
[the reason] to be established. Were a mind that appears as that [object]
to exist while the object that is known, strands of hair, does not, then also
when one having eyes lacking disease directs [his or her] eyes at the place,
such as a metal basin, where those strands of hair and the eyes come into
relationship, a mind appearing as strands of hair will similarly be produced. This is because [the circumstances] are analogous in that the object
does not exist. From such a consequence,b,16 [we may conclude that],
because production of a mind [appearing as] hair in one whose eyes are
not diseased is not like that, without an object there is no production of
cognition possessing an object.17
a shes bya
b thal ba, prasaºga
180
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=, /?-0:A-12-LJ.-.$$-0-.%-, /?-0-=-2gJ/-/?-P2-3,::)R$-5=-.$$-0-$*A?, .%-0R-=, *J?-%R%-$A-=/-.%-, .J-.$$-0$*A?,
,.%-0R-/A,
,$%-KA<-3,R%-2-.$-=-]R-/?-/A,
,(A/-3J.-.J-KA<-.J-=-]R-3A-:L%-,
,>J?-L-;R.-.%R?-V=-2?-3A/-8J-/,
56 !#$
,;=-;R.-0-.%-3J.-0?->J?-0-*J-2-.%-3A-*J-2<-%J?-/-.J-v<-:I<-.-($G%-, }<-IA->J?-0?-28$-0:A-2$-($?-(A/-0-.%-3-(A/-0?->J?-0-*J2-.%-3A-*J-2:A-o-;A/-0-$%-$A-KA<->J?-0-}-3:A-0<-$%-$A-2$-($?-;R%??-(A/-0-=-0->.-3J.-G%-.J:A-i3-0-&/-IA->J?-0-*J:A, <2-<A2-3J.-03,R%-2-.$-0-=->J?-0-}-3?-0<-$%-2:A-2$-($?-3-28$-0?-0<-$%$A-]R-*J-2:A-/?-0-/A-(A/-0-3J.-0-.J:A-KA<-<2-<A2-3J.-0-.J-=-0<-$%-$A-]R3A-:L%-2?-;=->J?-L-;R.-0:A-.%R?-0R-.%-V=-2?-.J-:6B/-IA-]R-3A-*J-23A/-&J-/,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
181
2.1.1.2.2 Refutation of the reply that abandons those flaws
(423:6)
This has two parts:
1 Refutation of the proof of energy
2 Refutation of the way of positing tenets in dependence upon energy
2.1.2.2.1 Refutation of the proof of energy (424:1)
This has two parts:
1 The answer that dispels flaws
2 Refutation of that
2.1.1.2.2.1.1 The answer that dispels flaws (424:1)
They may say, “Because in those who see, the energy for a mind
Has not ripened, in them a mind does not arise;
It is not due to separation from what is to be cognized, an existent
thing.” (56a-c)
They may say, “Were it ascertained that cognition is produced due to the
existence of an object and not produced due to its nonexistence, that would
be acceptable. However, cognition is produced due to the ripening of
latent predispositions set in place by previous cognition and not produced
due to their not ripening. Because this is their cause, for those in whom
the predispositions [set in place by] previous cognition for the appearance
as hair have ripened thoroughly, even [when] strands of hair are absent,
cognition having their aspect is produced. In those who see without disease, previous cognition has not set in place the latent predispositions for
the appearance as hair; therefore, the energy for the production of a mind
that appears as hair has not ripened. Because of that, in those without disease, a mind that appears as hair does not arise. This being so, that a mind
apprehending them is not produced is not due to separation from an
object that is to be cognized, an existent thing.”18
182
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-2!/-2>.-$*A?,
,.%-0R-/A,
,/?-.J-3J.-0?-:.A-/A-:P2-3-;A/,
56 %
,$=-+J-/?-0-8J?-L-2-:$:-8A$-;R.-/-.J-(A/-3-(A/-=?->J?-0-*J-3A-*J<:I<-2-8A$-/, :(.-:I<-IA-<A$?-0?-/?-0-.J-3J.-0?-/?-0-:.A-/AP2-0-3-;A/-/R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
183
2.1.1.2.2.1.2 Refutation of that (424:4)
This has two parts:
1 A [brief ] indication
2 An [extensive] explanation
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.1 A [brief ] indication (424:4)
That energy does not exist; therefore, this is not established (56d)
Were some “energy” to exist, from its ripening cognition would be produced and from its not ripening cognition would not be produced. For
the reasons to be explained, that energy does not exist; therefore, this
energy is not established.19
184
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=, .?-$?3-=-/?-0-3A-YA.-0-,A<-2!/, :.?-3-:R%?-=-3AYA.-0-LJ-V$-+-2>.-0-$*A?,
,.%-0R-/A,
,*J?-=-/?-0-YA.-0-;R.-3-;A/,
,3-*J?-%R-2R-=-;%-/?-;R.-3A/,
57 !#
,/?-0-8J?-L-2-8A$-;R.-/-i3->J?-.-v-2-*A.-.%-:VJ=-2:A-/?-0-&/-8A$$3, :.?-3-:R%?-.%-:VJ=-0:A-/?-0-&/-8A$-+-:.R., .%-0R-v<-<R-8J/, i3->J?-*J?-0-.-v-2-<%-=-/?-0-YA.-0-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, $%-$A-5K/?-0:A-i3->J?-8J?-S$-0-:VJ=-0-2eR.-0-;A/-/-/?-0-i3->J?-=?$8/-3A/-0:A-KA<-.%-, i3->J?-:V?-2<-I<-0-.-v-2-o-*A.-.-;R.-&J?L<-3A-<A$?-0:A-KA<, $=-+J-i3->J?-.-v-2-o-;A/-/, :V?-2:A-i3>J?-o-3J.-0<-:I<-+J, /?-0-.-v-2-<%-*A.-o<-3A-<%-2-$%-8A$
,;%-/-.J:A-/?-0-<%-=?-$8/-3-;A/-0:A-KA<, $*A?-0-v<-/, :.?-3:R%?-GA-3A-*J-2:A-%R-2R-=-;%-/?-0-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, <A$?-0?-$/R.-0:AKA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
185
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2 An [extensive] explanation (424:5)
This has two parts:
1 Indication that, in general, energy is not possible in the three times
2 Explanation that, in particular, [energy] is not possible with respect
to the past and the future
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.1 Indication that, in general, energy is not
possible in the three times (424:5)
Energy is not possible in the produced.
A nonproduced entity does not have energy either. (57ab)
Were “energy” to exist, it would possess energy in relation to consciousness of this present moment, or it would possess energy in relation to either
the past or the future. [One or the other would be] asserted.
They may say, “It is like the first.” [We would reply that] energy is not
possible in the present, produced consciousness itself. This is because if
“the energy’s consciousness” expresses the sixth, [the case of ] relationship,
then the energy is not other than the consciousness. This is also because it
is not reasonable to say, “The consciousness, which is the effect, exists in
the present as the cause itself.” If the present consciousness is the cause,
the consciousness that is an effect would be without cause because the present energy itself is not suitable as the cause or, alternatively, its the energy
is not other than itself....20 They may say, “It is like the second.” [We would
reply that] a nonproduced entity of the past or future does not have energy
either because reasoning a damages [such an assertion].21
a rigs pa, ny›ya/yukti
186
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=-3-:R%?-0-.%-, :.?-0-=-/?-0-3A-:,.-0-$*A?, .%-0R-=,
H.-0<-3J.-0:A-H.-&/-3A-:,.-0-.%-, .J:A-=/-.$$-0-.%-, 2vR?0?-3-P2-0-$?3,
,.%-0R-/A,
,H.-0<-3J.-0<-H.-0<-&/-;R.-3A/,
,3R-$>3-2-=:%-.J-/A-;R.-0<-,=,
57 $%
,;%-i3-0<->J?-0:A-/?-0-8J?-i3-0<->J?-0-H.-0<-;A/-=, /?-0-H.0<-IA-$8A-;A/-0-.J:A-5K-H.-0<-:V?-2-i3->J?-3-:R%?-0-3J.-0<-.J?H.-0<-.-L?-0-&/-IA-/?-0-.J-/A-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, H.-0<-3-29%-2<H.-0<-IA-$8A:A-]R-3A-:)$-0:A-KA<, *J?-2?-.L$-0-3-29%-2<-.L$-0&/-IA-]R-3A-:)$-0-28A/-/R, ,$=-+J-i3->J?-3-*J?-0-=-/?-0-.J-:.R.-/,
3R-$>3-IA-2-=:%-/?-0-.J-/A-;R.-0<-,=-2<-:I<-+J, 3-*J?-0<35%?-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
187
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2 Explanation that, in particular, [energy] is not
possible with respect to the past and the future (425:5)
This has two parts:
1 Energy is not feasible with respect to the future
2 Energy is not feasible with respect to the past
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.1 Energy is not feasible with respect to the
future (425:6)
This has three parts:
1 The possessor of the qualificationa is not feasible in the absence of
the qualification
2 Refutation of the reply to that
3 Nonestablishment due to contingency
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.1.1 The possessor of the qualification is not
feasible in the absence of the qualification (425:6)
In the absence of the qualification, nothing is qualified.
It would follow that even the child of a childless woman would have
that. (57cd)
Also, [in the expression] “the energy for the consciousness,” the consciousness is the qualification and the energy is the base for the qualification. At that time, in the absence of the qualification—the resultant,
future consciousness—no energy has been qualified by that because, without apprehending the qualification, an awareness of the base for the qualification does not operate. Similarly, without someoneb holding a stick, an
awareness of someone having a stick does not operate. Were that energy
asserted in regard to nonproduced consciousness, it would follow that
even the child of a childless woman would have that energy because they
are similar in [their] nonproduction.22
a khyad par
b skyes bu, puru˝ha
188
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-/A,
,$=-+J-:L%-2<-:I<-2?-2~.-:.R.-/,
,/?-0-3J.-0<-:.A-;A-:L%-:I<-3J., 58 !#
,$=-+J-/?-0-=?-:L%-:I<-IA-i3->J?-3-:R%?-0-=-2?3?-/?-i3->J?:.A:A-/?-0-:.A:R-8J?-:.A-=?-:.A-:L%-2<-:I<-2?-H.-0<-.-L?-/?H.-$8A<-2~.-.-<%-!J, .0J<-/-:V?-(/-5S?->A$ ,$=-3-:.A-=-<?;$-,R$?->A$-&J?-5-2-v<-:.R.-/, .J<-;%-3A-<%-!J, /?-0-;R.-/-.J=?-:L%-:I<-IA-i3->J?-3-:R%?-0-]R:A-;=-.-:I<-2-8A$-/, i3->J?3-:R%?-0-3J.-0?-.J?-H.-0<-.-L?-0:A-/?-0-3J.-0:A-KA<, .J?-/-3R$>3-IA-2-28A/-/?-0-3J.-0<-i3->J?-:.A:A-:L%-2<-:I<-2-;%-3J.-0;A/-/R, ,:.A?-/A-:V?-(J/-=-?R$?-0:A-.0J-.$-G%-2!$-0-;A/-/R,
,$?3-0-/A,
,1/-5/-.R/-=-2gJ/-0:A-:P2-0-/A,
,P2-3A/-*A.-&J?-.3-0-i3?-GA?-$?%?, 58 $%
,;%-/?-0-.%-i3->J?-1/-5/-2gJ/-0:A-o-:V?-=?-$&A$-o-$&A$-$A?1/-5/-.-LJ.-0:A-KA<-o-/?-0-=?-:V?-2-i3->J?-:L%-%R-8J-/, :R-/i3->J?-<%-28A/-IA-*J-2-.%-P2-0-;R.-0-3-;A/-0-*A.-.-:I<-+J, .0J</-<A%-0R-.%-,%-%-.%-1-<R=-.%-5-<R=-v-2-1/-5/-.R/-=-2gJ/-/?-:)R$0:A-P2-0-i3?-/A-%R-2R-*A.-GA?-P2-0-3A/-0-*A.-&J?-(R?-,3?-&.-GA-%R-2R!R%-0-*A.-.-$9A$?-0:A-.3-0-:1$?-0-i3?-GA?-$?%?-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
189
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.1.2 Refutation of the reply to that (426:2)
They may assert an explanation because of what will come;
As the energy does not exist, nothing will come of it. (58ab)
Considering a future consciousness that will come from energy, [they say]
“This is the energy for this consciousness.” Because this [consciousness]
will come from this [energy, the energy] has been qualified and may then
be explained as the base for the qualification; for example, “Cook the
rice”and “Make this wool into cloth.”
They may assert such; it does not fit the case because, were energy to
exist, the future consciousness that will come from it would be an object
for awareness; as future consciousness does not exist, therefore, energy
qualified by it does not exist. Thus, like the child of a childless woman, as
the energy does not exist, no consciousness will come of it. This negates
the examples of rice and so forth also.23
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.1.3 Nonestablishment due to contingency
(426:5)
“Establishment that depends upon reciprocal objects
Is just not established,” the excellent have said. (58cd)
They may also say that because energy and consciousness constitute
mutually dependent cause and effect, such that a single cause and a single object make one another in a reciprocal manner, from the cause,
[which is] energy, the effect, [which is] consciousness, arises. In that case,
the inherent production and establishment of consciousness becomes just
nonexistent. This is because the excellent, superior onesa who see the
entity of all phenomena as emptiness have said, “For example, establishments posited in dependence upon reciprocal objects such as long and
short, the far side and the near side, are just not established by [their own]
entityness.”b,24
a ’phags pa, ›rya
b ngo bo nyid, svabh›vat›
190
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=, $8/-=?-$8/-:L%-8A%-@-&%-,=-2-.%-, .J:A-*J?-%R%-$A=/-.$$-0-$*A?,
,.%-0R-/A,
,$=-+J-:$$?-0:A-/?-(A/-=?-:I<-/,
,$8/-IA-/?-0-=?-$8/-:L%-2<-:I<,
,o/-&/-i3?-.J<-1/-5/-,-..-;R.,
,.J-KA<-,3?-&.-!/-=?-:L%-2<-:I<,
59
,.-/A-:.?-0-=-/?-0-;R.-0-3A/-/R, ,8J?-!R/-0-$=-+J-*J?-/?-:$$28A/-0:A-i3->J?-GA?-:V?-2:A-.R/-.-!/-$8A-=-/?-0:A-H.-0<-28$-0i3->J?-:$$?-0:A-/?-0-(A/-0-=?-i3->J?-:L%-2<-:I<-<R-8J-/, .J=-!/-$8A-#?-=J/-0-.$-/A-/?-0-.-v<-2-=?-:L%-2<-:.R.-=, 3A-=J/0:A-i3-<A$-0-.$-/A-:.?-0:A-/?-0-=?-:L%-2<-:.R.-.R, ,.J-v<-/-i3>J?-$8/-IA-/?-0-=?-i3->J?-$8/-:L%-2<-:I<-+J, i3-0<->J?-0{.-&A$-}-KA-o/-3-(.-0<-:)$-0:A-o/-&/-{.-&A$-}-KA-i3?-o/-.J<1/-5/-$8/-.%-$8/-.-,-..-&A%-, $8/-*A.-.-;R.-0<-$8/-IA?-#?]%?-0:A-KA<, :.R.-/, $8/-=-2gJ/-/?-$=-+J-$8/-8A$-:L%-2<:I<-/-/A, :R-/-3J-tJ-=?-G%-3/-0-:,$-0R-:L%-:I<-8A%-, 8J?-?R$??-2!$-9A/-0:A-KA<, $8/-*A.-.-H.-0<-3J.-0-.J:A-KA<-.%R?-0R-!/-=?.%R?-0R-,3?-&.-:L%-2<-:I<-<R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
191
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.2 Energy is not feasible with respect to the
past (427:6)
This has two parts:
1 Other arising from other and its ludicrous consequence
2 Refutation of the reply that abandons those flaws
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.1 Other arising from other and its ludicrous
consequence (427:6)
Were [consciousness] to evolve from the ripened energy of what has
ceased,
Other would arise from energy that is other.
Those having continuity a are mutually different;
Therefore, all would arise from every[thing]. (59)
Now, showing that “energy does not exist with respect to the past”: They
may say, “Having arisen, as it ceased a consciousness placed a qualification
of energy in the base of all for the sake of an effect. From the ripened energy
of the consciousness that has ceased, consciousness will arise.” Those who
assert a base of all hold that [consciousness] arises from a contemporary
energy; those Proponents of Perception who do not assert [a base of all]
hold that [consciousness] arises from past energy. In that case, consciousness that is other would arise from the energy of consciousness that is
other.25 This is because others have affirmed that the earlier and later
moments of those having continuity, in which earlier and later moments
of consciousness operate without a break in continuity, in that continuity
are mutually different as other to one another and are only other.
If that is accepted, then other would arise in dependence upon other.
In that case, “thick darkness would arise from the tongue of fire” and so
on.26 This has been refuted already. In their otherness they27 do not differ;
therefore, all things would arise from everything.28
a rgyun, sa˙t›na
192
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-*J?-%R%-$A-=/-.%-, .J-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
,$=-+J-.J<-/A-o/-&/-,-..-GA,
,.J-.$-=-o/-,-..-3J.-.J:A-KA<,
,*J?-3J.-&J-/,
60 !#$
$=-+J-i3->J?-o/-IA-:)$-0:A-{2?-.J<-/A-o/-&/-;R.-0:A-m?-GA-{.&A$-}-KA-i3?-1/-5/-,-..-.-;R.-3R.-GA, {.-&A$-}-KA-.J-.$-=-o/$&A$-#R-/-=?-,-..-3J.-0-.J:A-KA<-,3?-&.-=?-,3?-&.-*J-2:A-*J?-03J.-&J-/,
,$*A?-0-/A,
,:.A-/A-212-L-8A$
,,-3A-..-o/-{2?-3A-<A$?-KA<-<R,
60 $%
,L3?-0-*J<-&?-=-2gJ/-(R?-i3?-/A,
,$8/-*A.-KA<-/-o.-$&A$-$+R$?-3A/-+J,
,$%-.$-<%-35/-*A.-GA?-?R-?R-2,
,.J-.$-o.-$&A$-$+R$?-0-<A$?-3-;A/,
61
.J-v<-;A/-/-*J?-0-3J.-G%-.J-3-P2-0?-:.A-/A-212-L-8A$-$R-!J, ,-3A..-0:A-o/-{2?-3J.-0:A-KA<-+J, i3->J?-{.-&A$-}-KA:A-m?-,-..-i3?=-,-3A-..-o/-$&A$-eJ?-?-:)$-0:A-$R-{2?-3A-<A$?-0:A-KA<-<R,
,L3?-0-.%-*J<-&?-v-2-$8/-.%-$8/-=-2gJ/-0:A-(R?-i3?-/A-$8/*A.-;A/-0:A-KA<-/-o.-$&A$-$+R$?-0-3-;A/-0-28A/-+J, i3->J?-{.-&A$-
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
193
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.2 Refutation of the reply that abandons
those flaws (428:6)
This has two parts:
1 The reply that abandons those flaws
2 Refutation of that
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.2.1 The reply that abandons those flaws
(428:6)
They may say, “There, those having continuity are different but
They do not have different continuity. Because of that,
There is no flaw.” (60a-c)
They may say, “There, when a continuity of consciousness operates, those
earlier and later substantial moments having continuity are indeed mutually different, but those earlier and later moments do not have different,
[which is to say] other than only single, continuity. Because of that, there
is no flaw of all being produced from all.”29
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.2.2 Refutation of that (429:2)
This is what is to be established,
Because the occasion of continuity without difference is not
reasonable. (60cd)
The phenomena that depend upon Maitreya and Upagupta
Are just other; therefore, they are not included in one continuum.a
To include those individualized by their specific characteristicsb
In one continuum is not reasonable. (61)
Were that so, there would be no fault; however, it is not established. Therefore, this is what is to be established because there is no occasion of continuity without difference. This is because, for different substances that
a rgyud, sa˙t›na
b rang mtshan, svalak˝ha˚a
194
The Moon of Wisdom
}-KA-$%-.$-<%-$A-35/-*A.-GA?-?R-?R-,-..-0-.J-.$-o.-$&A$-+-$+R$?0<-<A$?-0-3A/-+J-$8/-;A/-0:A-KA<, .J?-/-/?-0-;R%?-?-(A/-0-.%-3(A/-0-=?->J?-0-*J-2-.%-3A-*J-2-;A/-/R-8J?-0-.J?-2?=-2-;A/-+J, >J?L-3J.-/->J?-0-3J.-.R-8J?-0-:.A-P2-0:A-KA<-<R,
,$*A?-0-=-KR$?-}-3-.%-, .J-.$$-0-$*A?, .%-0R-=, .2%-0R-.%;=-IA-i3-$8$-2!/-0, ;=-3J.-G%-/?-0-=?->J?-0-:L%-2, .0J?-
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
195
are earlier and later moments of consciousness, the occasion of operating
as a single continuity without difference is not reasonable.
Phenomena that depend upon others, such as Maitreya and Upagupta, are just other; therefore, they are not included in one continuum.
Similarly, to include in one continuum those earlier and later moments
of consciousness individualized, [which is to say] differentiated, by their
specific characteristics is not reasonable because they are other. Thus, [the
assertion by the Proponents of Perception that,] “cognition is produced
from energy that has ripened thoroughly; when energy has not ripened,
cognition is not produced” has been dispelled by that [line of argument]
because this [assertion of ours], “When there is no object to be cognized,
there is no cognition,” is established.30
2.1.1.2.2.2 Refutation of the way of positing tenets in
dependence upon energy (429:5)
This has two parts:
1 The earlier position
2 Refutation of that
2.1.1.2.2.2.1 The earlier position (429:5)
This has three parts
1 Showing the presentation of sense powers and objects
2 Despite the absence of objects, consciousness arises from energy
3 Showing with an example
196
The Moon of Wisdom
2!/-0-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
,3A$-]R-*J-2-<%-/?-$%-8A$-=?,
,.J-3-,$-+-!/-/?-*J-:I<-8A%-,
,<%-$A-i3->J?-gJ/-IA-/?-.J-=,
,.2%-0R-$9$?-&/-3A$-&J?-L-2<-gR$?,
62
,i3-<A$-0?-/?-0-=-.2%-0R-.%-;=-.-2+$?-/?-$9$?-?-P2-0:A;=-.2%-3J.-G%->J?-0-*J-2<-:.R.-0:A-.R/-P2-2R-8J?, 3A$-$A-.2%-0R:C]R-*J-2<-:I<-2:A-<%-$A-/?-0-$%-8A$-<A?-3,/-IA-i3->J?-}-3-:$$28A/-0?-28$-0-KA-3<-;R%?-?-(A/-0-=?-.J-3-,$-+-)A-v<-;=-.2%-$A2$-($?-28$-0-.J-v:A-i3-0:A-eJ?-?-LJ.-0:A-3A$->J?-!/-/?-*J-2<:I<-8A%-, i3->J?-.J-*J-2:A-/?-0-2<-3-(.-0-$%-8A$-=?-*J?-0:A-3A$<%-$A-i3->J?-GA-gJ/-IA-/?-0-.J-=-$+A-3$-$A-.2%-$A?-:)A$-gJ/-/-.2%0R-$9$?-&/-3A$-&J?-gR$?->A%-,-~.-LJ.-GA, i3->J?-=?-,-..-0:A3A$-i:A-.2%-0R-?R$?-;R.-0-3-;A/-/R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
197
2.1.1.2.2.2.1.1 Showing the presentation of sense powers and
objects (429:5)
From a certain corresponding energy that will produce the eye’s
mind
Immediately [it] is thoroughly produced, and
That energy that is the support for the corresponding consciousness
Is considered to be “the physical sense power, the eye.” (62)
The Proponents of Perception say, “The meaning of the assertion that,
despite the absence of objects and sense powers that are established as
forms, cognition is produced by designating the energy as the sense power
and the object is established.” A certain corresponding energy that will
produce the eye sense power’s mind is placed by an earlier consciousness
of a concordant type as it ceases. Later, immediately upon [the energy]
having ripened thoroughly, an eye consciousness is thoroughly produced;
it accords in aspect with the predispositions for objects and sense powers
that were placed [there]. That energy that is the support for the corresponding consciousness—the eye that is produced from a particular
uninterrupted energy that produces that consciousness—is, due to the
power of bewilderment, considered in the world to be “the physical sense
power, the eye,” and conventionally designated as such. There are no eye
and ear sense powers and so forth that are different from consciousness.31
198
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-/A,
,:.A-/-.2%-0R-=?-L%-i3-0<-<A$
,KA-$9%-3J.-0<-<%-$A-?-2R/-=?,
,}R-?R$?-$%-*A.-:L%-2<-3-gR$?-/?,
,*J-2R?-KA-<R=-29%-2<-?J3?-#?-=J/,
63
,i3->J?-=?-,-..-0:A-.2%-0R-3J.-&A%-;=-;%->J?-0-=?-,-3A-..-.R-8J?!R/-0-/A, :.A-/-2/-K-!-.%-!A%->-!-?R$?-.3<-0R:C-i3-0-&/-.-*J-2-/A2+<->J=-28A/-KA-<R=-IA-5S/-IA?-2+<-2-=-3A-2vR?-0<-<%-o.-.3<0R:C-i3-0-&/-.-*J-2-28A/, 3A$-?R$?-GA-.2%-0R-=?-L%-2:A-i3-0<<A$-0-i3?-}R-?R$?-KA-<R=-IA-$9%-2-=-2vR?-0-3J.-0<-,R$-3J.-/?2o.-.J-:R%?-0:A-<%-$A-?-2R/-IA?-:1%?-0:A-/?-0-.%-eJ?-?-:VJ=-0=?-}R-?R$?-;=-.-$%-2-*A.-:L%-2<-3-gR$?-/?-:)A$-gJ/-IA-*J-2R?>J?-0-=-$%-2-KA-<R=-IA-$9%-2<-?J3?->A%-#?-=J/-0<-LJ.-.J, .0J<-/35S->A/-+-?%?-0:A-3,<-*J?-0:A->A%-$A-;=-$-=-2+$?-0:A-/R<-2:A$9$?-2f/-(-/%-.-><-2:A-KA-<R=-IA-/R<-2-v<-.3A$?-G%-;R.-0-3-;A/0-28A/-.-i3-0<->J?-0-=-.R/-IA-$9$?-2f/-><-;%-i3->J?-=?-,..-.-;R.-0-3-;A/-/R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
199
2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2 Despite the absence of objects, consciousness
arises from energy (430:2)
Here, as for perception that arises from sense powers,
Without an external object of apprehension, from their seeds
Appearances arise, blue and so on. Not realizing this,
People conceive and affirm external objects of apprehension. (63)
They teach, “There are no sense powers that are different from consciousnesses, and objects too are not different from cognition.” Here,
[flowers] such as bandhuka and kingshuka are produced having a red
aspect. Unlike the changes in crystal, this is not contingent upon transformation by external color. Rather, its own continuum is produced having a red aspect. Similarly, as for perception that arises from sense powers,
such as the eye, appearances as objects, blue and so on, arise from relationship with the energy impelled by their seeds, which come through a
beginningless transmission, without the contingency of an external object
of apprehension such as blue. Not realizing this, worldly people conceive
and affirm the appearances for cognition to be external objects of apprehension.
For example, a likeness of the form of a jewel hung upon the branches
of a tree that grows at the edge of an extremely clear lake dawns in the water.
Although observed to resemble an external jewel, it is not. Similarly, a likeness of the forms of objects dawns for a consciousness but is not different
from the consciousness.32
200
The Moon of Wisdom
,$?3-0-/A,
,kA-=3-/-/A-$9$?-.R/-$8/-3J.-0<,
,<%-/?-(A/-=?-.J-;A-i3-&/-?J3?,
,:L%-2-)A-v-.J-28A/-?.-=:%-:.A<,
,KA-<R=-3J.-0<-;A.-/A-;R.-&J-/,
64
,:.A<-?.-0:A-$/?-{2?-=:%-KA-<R=-3J.-0<-;A.-GA-i3->J?-/A-;R.-0;A/-+J, .0J<-/-kA-=3-/-/A-$9$?-?R$?-.R/-$8/-3J.-0<-<%-.%-eJ?-?3,/-0:A-/?-0-(A/-0-=?, $9$?-?R$?-;=-.J:A-i3-0-&/-IA-;A.-GA?J3?-:L%-2-)A-v-2-.J-28A/-/R-8J-/,
,$*A?-0-=-$/R.-LJ.-;R.-0-.%-, 12-LJ.-3J.-0-$*A?, .%-0R-=-/?-0=?-i3->J?-*J-/-=R%-2-=-3A$->J?-*J-2<-,=-2-.%-, kA-=3-/-;=-.2%;R.-3J.-35%?-0-$*A?,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
201
2.1.1.2.2.2.1.3 Showing with an example (431:4)
They may say, “In dreams, without other objects, [such as] forms,
Through the ripening of its energy, a mind having their aspect
arises.
Just like that, also when we are awake here,
Without the external, there is mental [consciousness].” (64)
They may say, “Also when we are awake here, there is mental consciousness without the external. For example, in dreams, without other
objects, such as forms, through the ripening of energy that accords with
it, a mind that is mental [consciousness] having the aspect of those
objects, forms and so forth, arises. It is just like that.”33
2.1.1.2.2.2.2 Refutation of that (431:6)
This has two parts:
1 There is damage
2 There is no proof
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1 There is damage (431:7)
This has two parts:
1 Were consciousness produced from energy, it would follow that eye
consciousness would be produced in the blind
2 Objects and sense powers in dreams are equally existent or nonexistent
202
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
,)A-v<-3A$-3J.-0<-/A-kA-=3-.,
,}R-?R$?-$%-2:A-;A.-?J3?-:L%-.J-v<,
,3A$-.2%-3J.-0<-<%-$A-?-2R/-/A,
,(A/-=?-=R%-2-=-:.A<-&A?-3A-*J,
65
,)A-v<-3A$-.%-$9$?-3J.-0<-/A-kA-=3-.-<%-$A-2$-($?-(A/-0-=?, }R?R$?-;=-.-$%-2:A-;A.-GA-?J3?-3A$->J?-.%-, eJ?-?-3,/-0-:L%-/-(R?&/, .J-v<-?.-{2?-GA-=R%-2-=-;%-3-=R%-2-v<, <%-$A-?-2R/-/A-(A/-0=?-?.-{2?-:.A<-i3-0-.J-v:A-}R/-0R-:6B/-0:A-;A.-?J3?-&A?-3A-*J-!J-*J-2<,=, $*A.-=R$-0-.%-=R%-2-$*A?-!-;%-3A$-.2%-3J.-0<-:S-2:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
203
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.1 Were consciousness produced from energy, it
would follow that eye consciousness would be produced in
the blind (431:7)
In dreams, a mental mind for which blue and so on appear
Arises without an eye. Like that,
Why is it not produced here for the blind
Through the ripening of its seed, in the absence of an eye sense
power? (65)
In dreams, a mental mind that accords with an eye consciousness and for
which blue and so on appear as objects arises through the ripening of its
predisposition, without an eye or a form—[this, your thesis, serves as our]
subject. If that is so, then, like that, why is a similarly aspected mental
mind apprehending blue not also produced here, in the waking state, for
those blind in the waking state, as it is for the sighted, through the ripening of its seed? It follows that it would be produced because sleep and
blindness resemble one another in the absence of an eye sense power.34
204
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, .J.-/-kA-=3-.-/?-0-3A-:,., 3-.J.-/-3A$-G%-;R.-0$*A?, .%-0R-=-/?-0:A-%R-2R-.%-, o-3A-:,.-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
,$=-+J-HR.-v<-kA-=3-S$-0-;A,
,/?-0-(A/-;R.-?.-0<-3J.-I<-/,
,S$-0:A-/?-(A/-)A-v<-:.A<-3J.-0,
,.J-v<-kA-5K-3J.-&J?-&A?-3A-<A$?,
66
,&A-}R/-0R:C-i3-0-.J-v-2:A-;A.->J?-GA-o-/A-KA-.R/-IA-.2%-;=-3J.-G%-;R..J, /?-0-(A/-0-=?-.J-v:A-;A.->J?-:L%-2:A-KA<, .J:%-$*A.-nJ/-IA?kA-=3-#R-/-=-;R.-GA, ?.-0-=-/A-3-;A/-/R-~3-/-3A-:,.-.R-8J?, $=-+JHR.-GA-v<-kA-=3-/-i3-0-.J-v:A-S$-0:A->J?-0-/?-0-(A/-0-;R.-=, ?.0<-I<-0-/-3J.-0?-)A-{.-2>.-0:A-*J?-0<-3A-:I<-/, %J.-GA-v<-/:.A-v<-eR.-0<-LJ.-.J, kA-=3-IA-5K-.J-v:A-i3-w/-IA->J?-0-;%-3J.-&J?&A?-3A-<A$?-+J-<A$?-0<-,=, S$-0:A-/?-0-(A/-0-)A-v<-?.-{2?:.A<-=R%-2-=-3J.-0-.J-v-2<-35%?-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
205
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.2 Objects and sense powers in dreams are
equally existent or nonexistent (432:2)
This has two parts:
1 When analyzed, energy is not feasible in dreams
2 When not analyzed, eyes exist also
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.2.1 When analyzed, energy is not feasible in
dreams (432:2)
This has two parts:
1 The entity of energy is not feasible
2 The cause of energy is not feasible
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.2.1.1 The entity of energy is not feasible (432:2)
According to you, the energy for the sixth has ripened
In dreams but not upon waking. If so,
Then, “Just as the ripened energy for the sixth does not exist here,
Similarly, it does not exist at the time of dreams.” Why is that
unreasonable? (66)
They may think, “There is a cause for such a mental consciousness having
an aspect of blue despite the absence of external sense powers and objects
because such a mental consciousness arises due to the ripening of energy.
Moreover, it exists only in dreams, due to the condition of sleep, but not
when we are awake.” We say, “That is not feasible.” According to you, the
energy for a sixth consciousness having such an aspect has ripened in
dreams but, upon waking, has not, due to which the flaws I have explained
do not apply. If so, then I will put it this way: “A cognition having such an
aspect does not exist at the time of dreams either.” Why is that unreasonable? It follows that it is reasonable because, just as the ripened energy
for the sixth does not exist for the blind here in the waking state, similarly [it does not] there [in the dream].35
206
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
,)A-v<-3A$-3J.-:.A-;A-o-3A/-v<,
,kA-=3-.-;%-$*A.-/A-o-3-;A/,
67 !#
,?.-0:A-$/?-{2?-?-)A-v<-3A$-3J.-0-=R%-2-:.A:A-o.-=-}R-?R$?-$%2:A-;A.->J?-GA-/?-0-(A/-0:A-o-3A/-0-v<-kA-=3-.-;%-$*A.-/A-;A.->J?-GA/?-0-(A/-0:A-o-3-;A/-+J, .J-$*A?-!<-3A$-3J.-0<-35%?-0:A-KA<,
$*A?-0-/A,
,.J-KA<-kA-=3-.-;%-.J-.%R?-3A$
,2m/-0:A-;=-&/-gR$?-0:A-o<-#?-]%-, 67 $%
,2>.-3-,$-0-.J-v<-;A/-0-.J:A-KA<-kA-=3-.:%-.J-v-2:A-;=-&/-IA->J?0:A-.%R?-0R-2m/-0:A-3A$-.%-, i3->J?-.J:A-gJ/-IA-2m/-0:A-;=-&/-IA.2%-0R-/A-;=-gR$?-0:A-o<-#?-]%-2<-L-!J, 3A$-?R$?-.2%-0R-3J.0<-;=-$9$?-1-?R$?-gR$?-0-3-3,R%-2:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
207
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.2.1.2 The cause of energy is not feasible (432:5)
The absence of eyes is not the cause for this; like that,
Sleep is not the cause in dreams. (67ab)
In the waking state, the absence of eyes is not the cause for the energy for
a mental consciousness to which blue and so on appear ripening in the
continuum of this blind person; like that, sleep is not the cause for the
energy for a mental consciousness ripening in dreams because both are
equivalent in the absence of eyes.36
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.2.2 When not analyzed, eyes exist also (432:6)
Because of that, in dreams also, eye things
[And] false possessors of objects are affirmed as the causes of
realization. (67cd)
Because of that immediately preceding explanation, in dreams also, eyes
that are false things—the cognitions possessing such objects—and the
false sense powers that are possessors of objects and that serve as the supports for those consciousnesses are to be affirmed as the causes of realizing objects because, in the absence of sense powers such as eyes, realization
of objects such as forms and sounds is not seen.37
208
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-<A$?-0-.%-, =%-$A-12-LJ.-3J.-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
,:.A-;A?-=/-/A-$%-.%-$%-2+2-0,
,.J-.%-.J-/A-.3-2&:-35%?-3,R%-2?,
,lR.-:.A-?J=-LJ.68!#$
.2-3-0?-?.-0:A-$/?-{2?-GA-;=-.2%-i3->J?-$?3-/A-<%-28A/-IA?!R%-0-;A/-+J, .3A$?-0:A-KA<-kA-=3-28A/-/R-8J?-2!/-0-=, 1-<R=-0R??.-0:A-i3->J?-/A-.R/-IA?-!R%-0-;A/-+J, i3->J?-;A/-0:A-KA<-kA-=3-IAi3->J?-28A/-/R, ,8J?-.%-, ?.-0:A-$/?-{2?-?-.3A$?-0:A-;=-/A2m/-0:A-<%-28A/-&/-;A/-+J, ;=-;A/-0:A-KA<, kA-=3-IA-;=-28A/-/R,
,8J?-.%-, !/-/?-*R/-3R%?-0-.%-i3-L%-/A-$8/-.2%-3J.-/-;R.-0-3;A/-+J, gJ/-3J.-0:A-KA<, <?-&=-IA-%:A-$R?-28A/-/R, ,.J-28A/-.-<2<A2-GA-.0J-=-.<-2-?R$?-i3->J?-5-2-:.A-;A?-=/-/A-$%-.%-$%-2+2-0.J-.%-.J-/A-3#?-0-.2-3-0-.$-$A?-.3-2&:-.%-35%?-0<-12-LJ.-=/?-0-3J.-0<-3,R%-2?-.R/-3J.-&A%-i3->J?-;R.-0<-5-2:A-lR.-0-:.A,3?-&.-?J=-2<-LJ.-.J, kA-=3-.%-<2-<A2-&/-?R$?-GA->J?-0-=-2vR?/-.R/-IA?-!R%-0.%-, ;=-2m/-0:A-<%-28A/-&/-.-212-3A-/?-=, 3-:O=-2:A->J?-0=-2vR?-/?-i3-0<->J?-0-;A/-0-.%-, $8/-.2%-?R$?-G%-212-L.%-35%?-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
209
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2 There is no proof (433:1)
This has two parts:
1 There is no reasoned proof
2 There is no scriptural proof
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.1 There is no reasoned proof (433:2)
Seeing each and every reply they have given
As equivalent to their thesisa
Closes this dispute. (68a-c)
The Proponents of the Middle Way teach, “The three—objects, sense
powers, and consciousnesses—of the waking state are empty of an inherent nature because of being observed, like dreams.” Their adversaries reply,
“Waking consciousness is empty of objects because of being consciousness, like consciousness in dreams”; and, “Objects observed in the waking
state have a nature that is false because of being objects, like objects in
dreams”; and, “The thoroughly afflictedb and the thoroughly refinedc do
not exist when the other powered does not exist because of lacking a support, like clothing made from the hair of a turtle.” Similarly, the learned
Proponents of the Middle Way see each and every reply these Proponents
of Consciousnessd have given, such as joining [their thesis] to the example of an eye disease, as equivalent to their thesis, [which is to say] lacking the power to prove. This closes altogether this dispute with those who
propound that objects do not exist and that consciousness does exist. This
is because, contingent upon the cognitions in dreams, of those who have
eye disease, and so forth, they are unable to prove [that waking cognition]
is empty of objects or that objects have a nature that is false; also, [the signs]
contingent upon nonmistaken consciousness—the reference to consciousness, [the allusion to] the other powered, and so on—are equivalent
to that which is to be proved.38
a
b
c
d
dam bca’, pratijñ›
kun nas nyon mongs pa
rnam par sbyang ba
rnam shes smra ba
210
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
?%?-o?-i3?-GA?-/A,
,:$<-;%-.%R?-0R-;R.-&J?-3-2!/-+R,
68 $%
,i3->J?-2.J/-3J.-.-12-0-=-=%-$A-$/R.-0-3J.-.J, mR$?-0:A-?%?-o?i3?-GA?-/A-1%-#3?-*J-3(J.-?R$?-;=-.?-$/?-{2?-:$:-;%-.%R?0R-;R.-&J?-3-2!/-0:A-KA<, =%-$>J$?-=?, YA.-0-$?3-/A-2+$?-043, ,%R-2R-*A.-GA?-.%R?-0R-3J., ,2+$?-0:A-.%R?-0R:C-%R-2R-/A, ,gR$-$J-2.$-gR$-0<-:I<, ,<%-28A/-3J.-&A%-i3-<A$-3J.,
,!/$8A-3J.-&A%-.%R?-3J.-/, ,LA?-0-%/-0-gR$-$J-2, ,<R-.%-:S-2?-:.A.$-2+$?, ,8J?-$?%?-?R,
,$?3-0-=-$?3-(<-*J-2-3J.-0-.%-, 3A/-/-$/R.-LJ.-2eR.-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
,i=-:LR<-0-;A?-]-3:A-3/-%$-=?,
,!J%-<?-GA?-$%-?-$8A-3,R%-2-$%-,
,.J<-;%-$?3-(<-*J-2-3J.-0<-3,R%-,
,=R$-0-;A.-=-LJ.-0-2!/-KA<-<R,
69
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
211
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2 There is no scriptural proof (433:6)
The buddhas
Have never taught, “Things exist.” (68cd)
There is no scriptural harm to the establishment of consciousness as not
true because the completely awakened buddhas have never taught at any
place, time, and occasion, “Things such as the aggregates,a elements, and
sense fieldsb exist.” From the SÒtra of the Descent into Laºka:c
The three existences are merely designated.d
Things do not exist by way of entityness.
The entities of designated things
Are conceived by logicians.
When inherent nature and perception do not exist,
There is no base of all, and there are no things.
Bad children, the logicians
Resembling corpses, therefore make them up.39
2.1.1.3 Refutation of skeletons as a concordant
example (434:6)
This has two parts:
1 All three are not produced
2 If not, expression of harm
2.1.1.3.1 All three are not produced (434:6)
With a guru’s quintessential instructions, a yogin
Sees the ground filled by skeletons. What then?
There also, all three are seen to be unproduced
Because, it is taught, something wrong has been taken to mind. (69)
a
b
c
d
phung po, skandha
skye mched, ›yatana
lang kar gshegs pa’i mdo, laºk›vat›rasÒtra
btags pa, prajñapti
212
The Moon of Wisdom
,$=-+J-;=-3J.-0<->J?-0-;R.-0-3-;A/-/, i=-:LR<-0-;A?-]-3:A-3/%$-=-2gJ/-/?-3A-#$-0-|R3-0-/, o-35S:C-3,<-H2-0:A-?-$8A-!J%-<?GA?-$%-2<-3,R%-2-.J-$%-8J-/, .J<-;%-nJ/-.2%-$A?-.J<-$%-43-=?;=-.2%-i3->J?-$?3-(<-*J-2-3J.-0<-3,R%-2-;A/-+J, +A%-%J-:6B/-.J-/A.J-#R-/-*A.-;A.-LJ.-GA-3,?-3A/-IA, =R$-0-;A.-=-LJ.-0:A-3,?-;A/-0<=%-/?-2!/-0:A-KA<-<R,
,$*A?-0-/A,
,HR.-GA-.2%-]R:A-;=-i3?-)A-v-2,
,.J-v<-3A-#$-;A.-GA-;%-:I<-/,
,.J-28A/-;=-.J<-]R-$+.-&A$->R?-GA?,
,gR$?-:I<-.J-/A-2m/-0<-;%-3A-:I<,
70
,i=-:LR<-0?-3,R%-2-.J-28A/-.-;=-.J<-!J%-<?-?R$?-2v-2<-:.R.-0:A]R-$+.-0-$&A$->R?-i=-:LR<-0-3A/-0-i3?-GA?-G%-gR$?-0<-:I<-2<,=, !J%-<?-?R$?-3A-#$-0-|R3-0:A-;A.-GA-;=-;%-2.J/-0<-:I<-/-.J*A.-GA-KA<, .0J-)A-v<-HR.-GA-.2%-]R:A-;=-23-0-v-2-=-2v-2-/, ;=.J<-3A$-$+.-0<-i3?-=?-$&A$-=-3A$->J?-.J:A-i3-w/-.-*J-2-v<-$8/.$-=-;%-*J-2-)A-v-2-.J-v-2-28A/-/R, ,:.R.-/, :.R.-0-.J:A-KA<, +A%%J-:6B/-.J-/A-2m/-0-.J-#R-/-*A.-3-;A/-0-;A.-=-LJ.-0<-;%-3A-:I<-<R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
213
When a yogin meditates upon ugliness in dependence upon a guru’s quintessential instructions, he or she sees the ground filled by skeletons all
the way to the ocean’s edge. If, in the absence of objects, there is no cognition, then what is that? There also, apart from mere appearance as such
due to the power of conditions, all three—object, sense power, and consciousness—are seen to be unproduced because, it is taught in scripture,
that meditative stabilization comes about not through the force of taking
a precise accuracy to mind but rather through the force of something
wrong being taken to mind.40
2.1.1.3.2 If not, expression of harm (435:2)
Like your objects for the awarenesses of sense powers,
If even [those objects] of the minds of ugliness were [true],
Then another’s awareness directed at that place
Would realize them; that also would not be false. (70)
It follows that, like yogins seeing them, others who are not yogins and who
direct their awareness at that place with the desire to view skeletons and
so forth would realize them. Why? If even the objects of the minds of
those who meditate upon ugliness, such as skeletons, were true, then for
that very reason! Like what example? When one views your objects for the
awarenesses of sense powers, such as a vase, among those who direct their
eyes at that place, an eye consciousness produced in that aspect for one will
be produced in exactly the same way for others also—just like that. If it is
accepted [that others who are not yogins would realize the ugliness that
yogins see], then because of that acceptance, that meditative stabilization
also would not be false, [which is to say] a taking to mind of what is not
precisely accurate.41
214
The Moon of Wisdom
,28A-0-/A,
,<2-<A2-.%-w/-.2%-0R-&/-35%?-=,
,(-:22-_%-=-;A-?$?-i$-]R-;%-,
71 !#
,<2-<A2-.%-w/-0:A-.2%-0R-&/-=-:O=-%R<-;=->J?-$*A?-!-;R.-0-v<$%-=, 3-:O=-2:A-%R<-$*A?-!-;R.-0-v<-3A-$%-8J?-2>.-0-.%35%?-0<-$;-?R$?-(-:22-[%-=-;A-?$?-i3?-=-i$-+-$%-2:A-]R-;%=?-.2%-$A?-2a.-0:A-:O=-%R<-i$-+-$%-2:A-;=->J?-$*A?-!-;R.-0v<-$%-=, 3-:O=-2-!J-3-2a.-0:A-%R<-$*A?-!-;R.-0-v<-3A-$%-%R-,
,s-0-/A,
,3.R<-/-)A-v<->J?-L-3J.-.J-28A/,
,]R-;%-3J.-&J?-.R/-:.A->J?-0<-IA?,
71 $%
,3.R<-2#-/-)A-v<->J?-L-<%-28A/-IA?-3J.-0-.J-28A/-.J:A-i3-0-&/-IA-]R;%-<%-28A/-3J.-&J?-L-2:A-.R/-:.A->J?-0<-IA?->A$-!J, .J-*A.-1/-5/$&A$-=-$&A$-2vR?-/?-28$-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
215
2.1.1.4 Refutation of other examples for mistakes (435:5)
Analogous to those who have sense powers affected by a disease
of the eye,
Where fluid flows, a hungry ghost is aware of pus. (71ab)
It is explained that, “For those who have sense powers affected by a disease of the eye, in a mistaken perspective, both the object and the consciousness appear as if they exist, but in a nonmistaken perspective, neither
appears as if they exist.” Analogously, where fluid such as the Ganges
flows, a hungry ghost has an awareness of an appearance as pus. In a mistaken perspective polluted by the power of actions,a the object appearing
to be pus and the consciousness for which pus appears both appear as if
they exist. In a nonmistaken, which is to say nonpolluted, perspective, neither appears to exist.42
2.1.1.5 Summary of the topic (447:2)
In brief, understand this meaning: “Just as the object of cognition
does not exist,
Like that, awareness also does not exist.” (71cd)
In brief, understand this meaning: “Just as the object of cognition does
not exist inherently, like that, awareness having its aspect also does not
exist inherently.” This is because they are posited by way of mutual contingency.43
a las, karma
216
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=, 12-LJ.-3J.-0?-$*A?-3J.-GA-$8/-.2%-;R.-0-3A-:,.,
<%-<A$-$A-12-LJ.-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
,$=-+J-$9%-3J.-:6B/-0-*A.-V=-8A%-,
,$*A?-GA?-!R%-0:A-$8/-.2%-.%R?-;R.-/,
,:.A-;A-;R.-0-$%-$A?->J?-0<-:I<,
,3-29%-2<-;%-;R.-&J?-L<-3A-<%-,
72
$=-+J-$9%-3J.-:6B/-0-*A.-V=-8A%-, $9%-:6B/-$*A?-GA?-!R%-0:A$8/-.2%-$A-.%R?-0R-.R/-.3-0<-;R.-/-:.A:A-;R.-0-*A.-;=-&/-$%-$A?>J?-0<-:I<-8J?-.R$?-0-2a%-/?, <%-*A.-GA?-:6B/-0-/A-3A-:,.-.J,
<%-$A?-<%-=-L-2-:$=-2:A-KA<, 3J?-<%-$A-2.$-*A.-3A-YJ$-0-28A/,
>J?-0-}-3-?R$?->J?-0-$8/-IA?-:6B/-0-3A/-+J, <%-$A-P2-3,:-.%:$=-2:A-KA<-+J, i3-<A$-$8/-8A$-i3-<A$-$A-;=-;A/-/-i3-<A$-0-43*A.-.R-8J?-5?-0-*3?-0<-:I<-2:A-KA<, ;=-&/-:$:-8A$-$A?-3-29%2<-;%-;R.-&J?-L<-3A-<%-!J, @-&%-,=-2:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
217
2.1.2 Refutation of a nondual other powered that is
substantially established (447:6)
This has two parts:
1 With nothing establishing it, the existence of a nondual other powered is not feasible
2 Refutation of the establishment of a knower of itself
2.1.2.1 With nothing establishing it, the existence of a
nondual other powered is not feasible (447:6)
Were there an other powered thing lacking an apprehended,
Free from apprehension, and empty of duality,
What would cognize its existence?
“Although not apprehended, it exists,” may not be claimed. (72)
“Were there ultimately an other powered thing lacking an apprehended,
free from apprehension, and empty of the duality of apprehended and
apprehender, what possessor of an object would cognize its very existence?” Having raised that qualm, [we name the weak points:] apprehension by itself is not feasible because to act upon itself would be a
contradiction, just as fire does not scorch itself. Another consciousness
does not apprehend an earlier consciousness and so on because that contradicts their own tenets.a This is because, were another perception to be
the object of perception, the proposition of “only perception itself ” would
wither. “Although not apprehended by any possessor of objects, it exists,”
may not be claimed because the consequences are ludicrous.44
a grub mtha’, siddh›nta
218
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=-3.R<-2!/, S/-0:A-12-LJ.-.$$ ,?/-:LA/-IA-=3-$8/2!/-0-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
,.J-*A.-GA?-.J-MR%-2<-P2-3-;A/,
73 !
$8/-IA?-$8/-:6B/-0-3J.-G%-<%-<A$-0-/A-;R.-.J, <%-*A.-GA?-<%:6B/-0:A-KA<, .0J<-/-3<-3J-<%-$A?-<%-$?=-2-28A/-/R-8J-/, $8/.2%-.J-*A.-GA?-$8/-.2%-.J-MR%-2<-P2-0-3-;A/-+J, <%-$A?-<%-=-L-2:$=-2:A-KA<, =J$?-0<-2a2?-0-$;J<-8A%-;%-9R<-&/-IA?-G%-<%-$AU$-0-=-8R/-0<-3A-/?-0-28A/-/R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
219
2.1.2.2 Refutation of the establishment of a knower of itself
(452:6)
This has three parts:
1 Brief indication
2 Refutation of establishment by memory
3 Showing other paths that discredit [the opponent’s position]
2.1.2.2.1 Brief indication (453:1)
That it experiences itself is not established. (73a)
They may say, “Although one does not apprehend another, there is knowledge of itself a because it apprehends itself. For example, this resembles a
butter lamp illuminating itself.” That an other powered nature experiences itself, an other powered nature, is not established because to act
upon itself would be a contradiction, just as even a well-trained acrobat
cannot climb upon his own shoulders.45
a rang rig, svasa˙vedana
220
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=, 3-P2-0?-3-P2-0-12-3A-/?-0-.%-, <%-<A$-P2-G%-S/0?-3A-:P2-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
,$=-+J-KA-.?-S/-0-=?-:P2-/,
,3-P2-212-0<-L-KA<-2eR.-0-;A,
,3-P2-:.A-/A-12-0<-LJ.-0-3A/,
73 #$%
,$=-+J-}<-%?-$9$?-3,R%-%R-~3-.-KA?-.?-GA-$*A?-!:A-;=-&/-IA-S/0-=?-.J:A-o-;=->J?-$*A?-!<-*3?-?-MR%-2-*A.-P2-0:A-KA<, <%-MR%2:A-.R/-&/-IA-<%-<A$-P2-=, .J-P2-0-/-$8/-.2%-;R.-0<-.J-*A.-GA?>J?-?R-8J-/, $8/-.2%-m?-;R.-.-12-0-=-S/-0-12-LJ.-.-2!R.-0-.Jv<-/, .R/-.3-0<-3-P2-0:A-<%-<A$-212-0<-L-2:A-KA<-+J, (J.-.2eR.-0:A-S/-0-:.A-/A-<%-<A$-.J:A-12-0<-LJ.-0-3-;A/-+J, <%-<A$-v<S/-0-;%-.R/-.3-0<-3-P2-0:A-KA<-+J, 2.$-$8/-?R$?-=?-*J-2-3J.0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
221
2.1.2.2.2 Refutation of establishment by memory (453:3)
This has two parts:
1 The nonestablished cannot establish the nonestablished
2 Even if a knower of itself were established, it would not be established
by memory
2.1.2.2.2.1 The nonestablished cannot establish the
nonestablished (453:3)
Is it to be established at a later time through memory?
This nonestablished, which is stated in order to establish the
nonestablished,
Does not establish [it]. (73b-d)
They may say, “At a later time one thinks, ‘Previously I saw a form.’
Through memory that has both [the object and the consciousness] as its
object, its cause—precisely that experience of both the object and the consciousness—is established.Therefore, a knower of itself that has experience
of itself as content is established. If that is established, just that knows the
other powered to exist.” Thus, to establish the substantial existence of the
other powered, memory is presented as the establisher. In that case, this
memory, which is stated specifically in order to establish a knower of itself
that is not established ultimately, does not establish that knower of itself
because, like the knower of itself, memory too is not established ultimately. This is because it is not produced from itself, other, and so on.46
222
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=, $8/-;A/-0:A-KA<-S/-0:A-;=-3-;A/-0-.%-, <%-=-35%?0-%%-2-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
,<%-<A$-0-/A-P2-=-<$-3R.-GA,
,.J-v:%-S/-0:A-S/-0-<A$?-3A/-+J,
,$8/-KA<-3->J?-o.-=-*J?-0-28A/,
,$+/-5B$?-:.A?-/A-H.-0<-.$-G%-:)R3?,
74
,;%-.JR.-5=-:.A-2+%-/?-<%-<A$-;R.-0-v<-#?-]%?-+J-.$$-0-/A,
>J?-0?-;=->J?-$*A?-!-MR%-2:A-<%-<A$-0-/A-P2-+-($-=-<$-3R.-GA,
.J-v<-/-;%-.?-KA?-GA-S/-0:A->J?-0?-}<-IA-;=->J?-.J-.$-S/-0<<A$?-0-3-;A/-+J, }<-IA-MR%-2-.%-KA?-GA-S/-0-m?-$8/-;A/-0:A-KA<,
.0J<-/-L3?-0:A-o.-GA-S/-0?-<%-$A?-3->J?-0:A-*J<-&?-GA-o.-=-*J?0:A-<%-<A$-0-.%-;=-MR%-2-3A-S/-0-28A/-/R, ,$8/-;A/-;%-S/-+J-}<MR%-.%-KA?-S/-o.-$&A$-+-$+R$?-0-.%-o-:V?-GA-.%R?-0R<-$/?-0:AKA<-8J-/, $8/-;A/-0:A-KA<-8J?-0:A-$+/-5B$?-:.A?-/A-o.-$&A$-+$+R$?-0-.%-, o-:V?-GA-.%R?-0R<-$/?-0-?R$?-GA-H.-0<-.$-G%:)R3?-+J, $%-$8/-;A/-0-.J-/A-*3?-?-MR%-2:A->J?-0-.%-o.-$&A$-+$+R$?-0-.%-o-:V?-GA-.%R?-0R<-$/?-0-3-;A/-0?-H2, .0J<-/-o.$8/-IA->J?-0-28A/-KA?-GA-S/-0-.%-*3?-MR%-$A->J?-0-/A-}<-IA-<%-<A$$A->J?-0-=?-$8/-;A/-/R-8J?-?R$?-GA?-o-(J<-.$$-0<-L:R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
223
2.1.2.2.2.2 Even if a knower of itself were established, it
would not be established by memory (455:5)
This has two parts:
1 Because of being other, it is not an object for memory
2 Repudiating similarity to our [position]
2.1.2.2.2.2.1 Because of being other, it is not an object for
memory (455:5)
Let us suppose that a knower of itself is indeed established;
Even so, for memory to remember would not be reasonable
Because [of being] other, resembling what arose in a continuum
that is not cognized.
This reason destroys the qualifications. (74)
Having analyzed in this manner, and having agreed [to discuss] the knower
of itself as if it did exist, [we nevertheless] refute [its establishment by memory]. Let us suppose that a knower of itself, a cognition that experiences
both an object and consciousness, is indeed established; even if that were
so, for a cognition that remembers at a later time to remember the earlier
object and consciousness would not be reasonable because the earlier
experience and the later memory are [mutually] other substantial entities.a
This resembles, for example, the memory in Maitreya’s continuum that
does not remember a knower of itself and an experience of objects that
arose in Upagupta’s continuum, which [Maitreya] does not know.
They may say, “They may be remembered despite being other because
earlier experience and later memory are included within one continuum
and abide as things that are [mutually] cause and effect.” This reasonb—
because of being other—destroys the qualifications of being included
within one continuum, abiding as things that are [mutually] cause and
effect, and so forth: whatever is other is pervaded by not being included
within the continuum of the experiencing cognition and by not abiding
as a thing that is the cause or the effect of the experiencing cognition. Statements such as, “For example, like cognition in another continuum, the
later memory is other than the experiencing cognition, i.e., the earlier cognition that knows itself,” negate [such responses] extensively.
a rdzas, dravya
b gtan tshigs, hetu
224
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-/A,
,$%-KA<-$%-$A?-;=-MR%-I<-.J-=?,
,S/-0-:.A-$8/-%-=-;R.-3A/-0,
,.J-KA<-%-;A?-3,R%-~3-S/-:I<-+J,
,:.A-;%-:)A$-gJ/-,-~.-5=-=$?-;A/,
75
,:R-/-HR.-=-}<-MR%-KA?-S/-0<-3A-:I<-2<-,=, $8/-;A/-0:A-KA<-8J-/,
#R-2R-.2-3-0?-/A-}<-MR%-KA?-S/-/A-.J.-/?-}<-<%-<A$-;R.-0:A-o-35/=?-KA?-S/-0-*J-2-?R$?-GA?-3A-212-0<-3-.J.-0<-:)A$-gJ/-=-P$?0-43-.-2eR.-0-$%-$A-KA<-}<-$%-$A?-;=-MR%-:I<-IA->J?-0-.J-=?-KA?GA-S/-0:A->J?-0-:.A-m?-$8/-.-P2-0-%-=-;R.-0-3A/-+J, <%-$A-2.$*A.-GA-m?-.%-$8/-IA-2.$-*A.-GA-m?-=-?R$?-0:A-o-:V?-GA-.%R?-0R<3-P2-/-}<-MR%-KA?-S/-?R$?-3-.J.-0-/:%-2vR?-(R?-GA-o-:V?-:)R$3A-2+2-0-3-;A/-0:A-KA<, ,.J?-/-KA?-GA->J?-0?-%-;A?-}<-3,R%-%R~3-.-S/-0<-;%-:I<-+J, }-KA:A->J?-0-m?-$8/-3-;A/-0-.J:A-KA<-+J,
$%-*3?-?-MR%-2-.J-S/-0?-3-MR%-2:%-3-;A/-=, MR%-2?-;R%?-?-2&.0-.J-S/-0?-3-2&.-0:%-3-;A/-0:A-KA<-+J, MR%-S/-IA-5=-:.A-;%-:)A$gJ/-IA-,-~.-GA-5=-=$?-;A/-IA, >A/-+-.J.-L-3A/-0:A-KA<-+J, :)A$gJ/-IA-,-~.-,3?-&.-/A-2m/-0:A-.R/-&/-;A/-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
225
2.1.2.2.2.2.2 Repudiating similarity to our [position] (456:3)
That this remembering is other
Than what experienced the object is not for me.
Therefore, one remembers, thinking, “I saw.”
This, moreover, is the way of the world’s conventions. (75)
They may say, “In that case, for you it follows that earlier experience will
not be remembered later because of being other.” Later memory of previous experience is, upon analysis, not established by later memory coming
into being and so forth due to the reason that, previously, a knower of itself
existed; without analyzing, we of the Middle Way School merely conform
to worldly custom. That this later remembering cognition is established
as a substantial entity that is other than the earlier cognition that experienced the object is not for me. This is because, when [they] are not established as causal and resultant things—substantial entities that are by nature
themselves, substantial entities that are by nature other, and so on—so
long as earlier experience, later memory, and so forth are not analyzed, contingent cause and result are not unable to be posited....47
Therefore, a later cognition will remember, thinking, “Earlier I saw,”
precisely because the earlier and later cognitions are not substantially other.
This is because it is not the case that memory does not experience what
has been experienced and that memory does not discern what experience
has discerned. Why? Because this way of experiencing and remembering,
moreover, is the conventional way of the world but is not be to analyzed
closely. This is because all the world’s conventions have a meaning that is
false.48
226
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
,.J-KA<-<%-<A$-;R.-0-3-;A/-/,
,HR.-GA-$8/-.2%-$%-$A?-:6B/-0<-:I<,
,LJ.-0R-=?-.%-L-2-$&A$-3A/-0?,
,.J-*A.-GA?-.J-:6B/-0<-<A$?-3-;A/,
76
,i3-<A$-0-HR.-GA-$8/-.2%-;=-&/-IA->J?-0-$%-$A?-:6B/-0<-:I<-+J3A-:I<-2<-,=, 2>.-3-,$-0:A-<A$?-0?-<%-<A$-;R.-0-3-;A/-0-.J?/:A-KA<-.%-, $8/-<A$-;R.-0:%-3-;A/-0:A-KA<, >J?-0-.J-*A.-GA?-.J*A.-:6B/-0<-<A$?-0-3-;A/-+J, LJ.-0R-=?-.%-L-2-$?3-0R-.$-$&A$-03-;A/-0?-.J-*A.-GA-KA<, $&R.-0R-$%-9$-.%-2&.-L->A%-.%-.3-2<$&R.-0-$?3-=-$&A$-0-3J.-0-28A/-/R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
227
2.1.2.2.3 Showing other paths that discredit [the opponent’s
position] (461:2)
Therefore, when a knower of itself does not exist,
What apprehends your other powered nature?
The agent, object, and action are not one; therefore,
It is not reasonable for that very [consciousness] to apprehend itself.
(76)
Proponents of Perception, what cognition possessing objects would
apprehend your other powered nature? It follows that no [such cognition]
would [apprehend it]. This is because, for the reasons explained just previously, a knower of itself does not exist, and moreover a knower of othera
does not exist either. It is not reasonable for that very cognition to apprehend itself because the three—agent, action, and object—are not one, just
as the person who cuts, the wood that is cut, and the cutting into pieces—
a threesome—are not one.49
a gzhan rig, anyasa˙vedana
228
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
,$=-+J-*J-2-3J.-&A%-3->J?-0:A,
,2.$-&/-$8/-.2%-%R-2R:C-.%R?-;R.-/,
,$%-$A?-/-:.A-;R.-0<-3A-<A$?-0,
,$8/-=-3R-$>3-2?-$/R.-&A-8A$-2*=,
77
,.-/A-$8/-.2%-3R?-3J.-;J->J?-GA-;=-=?-3R?-;=-3A/-/R-8J?-:.R.-0-3A:,.-0-/A, $=-+J-$8/-.2%-.J-$R%-.-2>.-0-v<-2.$-$8/-=?-*J-23J.-&A%-, 2.$-$8/-$%-$A?-G%-3->J?-0:A-2.$-*A.-&/-$8/-.2%3R?-V=-IA-%R-2R:C-.%R?-0R<-;R.-0<-<A$?-/, .J-v<-;R.-5=-.J-$%-$A?-/,
3R-$>3-2-=:%-;R.-0<-35%?-0?-$8/-.2%-;R.-0<-:.R.-&A%-, 3R$>3-2-/A-;R.-0<-3A-<A$?-0:R-8J?-5-2-:.A-/A-$8/-i3-<A$-0-=-3R-$>32?-$/R.-&A-8A$-2*=-=,
$8/-.2%-$A?-1/-)A-43-2+$?, .J?/-*J-<A%-~R3?-=-3R-$>3-2:%-$8/-.2%-v<-3R?-0-.%-V=-2:A-:1$?0:A-;J->J?-GA-;=-.-2eR.-3J.-GA-<%-28A/-.-;R.-.R-8J?-:.R.-0<-IA?->A$
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
229
2.1.3 Refutation of not being an object for all elaborations
(461:4)
If an unborn other powered having an unknown nature
Exists as a thing that is an entity,
Then why? For it to exist is not reasonable.
What harm has the child of a childless woman inflicted upon
others? (77)
Now, the assertion, “The other powered, apart from being the object for
the wisdom for which elaborations do not exist, is not the object of elaborations,” is not feasible. If, in accordance with the explanation given
above, it is reasonable for an other powered not born from itself or other
and having a nature unknown by oneself or any other to exist as a thing
that is an entity free from the elaborations, why would it be so? As it is
equivalent to the child of a childless woman, when they assert the existence
of the other powered and propound, “For the child of a childless woman
to exist is not reasonable,” I wonder what harm the child of a childless
woman has inflicted upon others, the Proponents of Perception. How
much benefit has the other powered brought? Therefore, equalize your bias
and assert this: “Like the other powered, the children of childless women
exist: inexpressible in nature, they are the objects of a superior’s wisdom
that is free from the elaborations.”50
230
The Moon of Wisdom
,28A-0-=, $8/-.2%-;R.-/-!/-mR2-2.J/-0-=?-*3?, 2.J/-$*A?=?-*3?-/-,<-0-3A-,R2, .J:A-o-35/-2>.-0-.%-$?3, .%-0R-=,
3J.-0-o<-3A-<%-2-.%-, :)A$-gJ/-.%-:$=-2-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
,$%-5K-$8/-.2%-&%-9.-;R.-3A/-/,
,!/-mR2-0-;A-o<-/A-$%-8A$-:I<,
78 !#
,.%R?-0R-2g$?-0-;R.-0:A-o<-I<-0:A-$8/-.2%-;R.-0-*A.-<A$?-0-8A$$R-~3-/, .J-;%-3A-:,.-.J, !/-mR2-0:A-.%R?-0R-i3?-GA-o<-/A-$8/.2%-$%-8A$-:I<-+J-3A-:I<-2<-,=, $%-$A-5K-12-LJ.-3J.-&A%-$/R.LJ.-;R.-0?-$8/-.2%-&%-9.-G%-;R.-0-3-;A/-0-.J-*A.-GA-KA<-<R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
231
2.1.4 Refutation of the existence [of the other powered] as
the cause for concealersa (463:2)
This has three parts:
1 If the other powered exists, it withers before truths for concealers
2 When one withers before the two truths, liberation is not achieved
3 Explanation of the reason for that
2.1.4.1 If the other powered exists, it withers before truths
for concealers (463:2)
This has two parts:
1 A nonexistent is not suitable as a cause
2 Contradiction with the world
2.1.4.1.1 A nonexistent is not suitable as a cause (463:3)
When the other powered does not exist even slightly,
What would be the cause for concealers? (78ab)
They may think, “The very existence of the other powered, which is the
cause for ideational things, is reasonable.”51 This too is not feasible. What
other powered nature would be the cause for things that are concealers?
When, in the absence of proof and in the presence of assailants, the other
powered does not exist even slightly, precisely because of that it follows
that none would.52
a kun rdzob, sa˙v¸ti
232
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
,$8/-IA-v<-/-m?-=-($?-0-;A?,
,:)A$-gJ/-P$?-0:A-i3-28$-!/-G%-2_$ 78 $%
?J3?-43-0?-,-~.-!/-mR2-0:A-o-$8/-.2%-;A/-0<-:.R.-0-*A.-GA?-.Jv<-/-.J-/A-,-~.-GA-o<-3J.-0?-?J3?-43-5-2-=-,-~.-GA-i3-$8$-:)R$3A-,2-0?-GJ-3-GJ-@., i3-<A$-0-$8/-IA-v<-/-$8/-.2%-$A-m?-;R.-03A/-0-=, ;R.-.R-8J?-.J<-($?-0-;A?-.J?-:#R<-:.?-GA-(R?-,3?-&.-GA-o3A-LJ.-28A/-LJ.-.R-8J?-8J/-/?-5-/, :)A$-gJ/-=-P$?-0:A-:.$-&A$-?R%8A$-&J?-?R$?-GA-i3-$8$-!/-G%-2_$-0<-:I<-2-;A/-+J, $8/-.2%.J?-2*J.-0:A-P$?-0:A-i3-$8$-$A-:PR-:.$-?R$?-:)A$-gJ/-/-3A-YA.-0:AKA<, 2_$-0?-&A-!R-~3-/, :U=-IA-P$?-0:A-=J$?-*J?-=R$-0<-,.-/c.-0-*A.-.-:I<-+J, 3%R/-3,R-43-;%-,R2-0<-3A-/?-0:A-KA<-<R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
233
2.1.4.1.2 Contradiction with the world (463:4)
If one accords with the others, due to attachment to substantial
entities,
All the transactions customary in the world are lost. (78cd)
The Proponents of Mind Only assert the other powered to be the cause of
the conventional, which is to say, of concealers. In that case, since it does
not exist as the cause of the conventional, the Proponents of Mind Only
cannot posit presentations of the conventional. Oh me! Oh my! If one
accords with the other Proponents of Perception, attachment to other
powered substantial entities that do not exist but are regarded as existent
leads to propounding vehemently that they serve as the causes for all the
phenomena of sa˙s›raa and nirv›˚ab even while they do not. Thus, all the
transactions customary in the world—“stay, go,” and so on—are lost
because customary transactions such as going and staying that are generated by that other powered nature do not occur in the world. One may
wonder what harm there may be in the loss. If we make a mess of our customs of the worthy and the criminal, things will surely become worse, for
then even mere high status cannot be achieved.53
a ’khor ba, sa˙s›ra
b mya ngan las ’das pa/myang ’das, nirv›˚a
234
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
,aR2-.0R/-[-12-82?-GA-=3-=?-/A,
,KA-<R=-I<-=-8A-2:A-,2?-3J.-.R,
,.J-.$-!/-mR2-.J-*A.-2.J/-=?-*3?,
,.J-=?-*3?-0?-,<-0-:P2-;R.-3A/,
79
,.J?-/-aR2-.0R/-[-12-82?-GA-2.J/-$*A?-GA-i3-0<-28$-0:A-=3-=?/A-KA-<R=-.-I<-0-<%-.$<-i3-gR$-$A?-.<-2:A-,<-0:A-(J.-.-i3-<A$-.%h=-U/-.%-$%-9$-.%-$4S-2R-?R$?-?J3?-43-0-/?-o%-:1J/-IA-2<-5-2=-/A-8A-2:A-,2?-3J.-.R-!J, i3-<A$-?R$?-.J-.$-<A$?-0?-.J.-/-gR$2+$?-GA-$8/-.2%-.%-2.$-.%-$4S-2R-?R$?-.R/-.3-.-v-8R$ ,!/mR2-,-~.-.:%-:)A$-gJ/-/-,A-3,/-.-3-P$?-0-i3?-<%-=$?-GA?-;R.0<-:)R$-0?-:)A$-gJ/-.%-3A-3,/-0?-!/-mR2-GA-2.J/-0-=?-*3?->A%-,
:1$?-0:A-$9A$?-0-i3?-.%-3A-3,/-0<-5-2?-.J-#R-/-*A.-.R/-.32.J/-0-=?-*3?-0<-:I<-=, 2.J/-$*A?-.J-=?-*3?-0?-,<-0-P20-;R.-0-3A/-+J, :)A$-gJ/-.-2.J/-$*A?-2vR?-:)R$-$A-:#R<-:.?-:(A%PR=-:,.-w/-=?-$8/-.-,.-/-:)A$-gJ/-/-:#R<-:.?-:(A%-PR=-?R$?KA/-&A-=R$-+-:I<-2:A-KA<, P%?-&/-IA?-2.J/-$*A?-i3-0<-28$-0:A=3-=-%=-2?-,<-0-:V?-2-3J.-0:A-.R/-&/-.-?R%-2-28A/-/R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
235
2.1.4.2 When one withers before the two truths, liberation
is not achieved (464:2)
Those outside the paths of the honorable master N›g›rjuna
Have no method for peace.
They wither before truths for concealers and the truth of suchness.
Having withered, they do not accomplish liberation. (79)
Those outside the paths consisting in the honorable master N›g›rjuna’s
presentation of the two truths, from the Proponents of Mind Only down
to the Proponents of Materialism,a [who propose] perception, subtle particles, the person,b the principal,c and so on for the sake of a liberation they
have dreamed up on their own, have no method for peace. When the Proponents of Perception and so on are analyzed with reasoning, how could
the other powered, the self, the principal, and so on that are designated by
thought be ultimate? Their own systems posit as existent that which is not
customary and generally agreed upon in the world, not even as concealment and convention, and thus, as they are not in harmony with the world,
they wither before truths for concealers. Additionally, as they expound in
a manner that does not accord with the vision of superiors, they wither
before suchness, the ultimate truth. Withering before those two truths,
they do not accomplish liberation. Why? The two truths are posited contingently for the world, such that sa˙s›ra and nirv›˚a, and bondage and
release are feasible. Analyzed in some other way, sa˙s›ra and nirv›˚a,
bondage and release, and so on become perversions for the world, just as
the hardship endured upon the paths of the two truths presented by the
Enumeratorsd yields a liberation without fruit.54
a
b
c
d
rgyang ‘phen pa, ›yata/ch›rv›ka
gang zag, pudgala
gtso bo, pradh›na
grangs can, s›˙khya
236
The Moon of Wisdom
,$?3-0-/A,
,,-~.-2.J/-0-,2?-?-I<-0-.%-,
,.R/-.3-2.J/-0-,2?-L%-I<-0-!J,
,.J-$*A?-i3-.LJ-$%-$A?-3A->J?-0,
,.J-/A-i3-gR$-=R$-0?-=3-%/-8$?,
80
,2.J/-$*A?-=?-*3?-/-,<-0-3A-,R2-0:A-o-35/-/A, ,-~.-2.J/-0-1%#3?-*J-3(J.-GA-gJ/-:VJ=-IA-(R?-mR$?-?%?-GA?-2!/-0-/A-.R/-.3-gR$?0:A-,2?-?-I<-0-.%-!J,
+A%-o=-=?,
,;A-$J-3J.-0:A-(R?-=?-/A,
,*/-0-$%-.%-!R/-0-$%-,
,:I<-2-3J.-=-1R-2+$?-0?,
,:R/-G%-*/-&A%-!R/-0-;A/,
,&J?-:L%-%R-, ,.R/-.3-2.J/-0-2!/-0-/A-,2?-=?-L%-2<-I<-0-!J,
,-~.-GA-2.J/-0-=-2gJ/-+J-.R/-.3-!R/-=, .J-#R%-.-(.-0-=?-.R/-.3-!J3A-$/?-0:A-M%-:.?-,R2-0<-:I<-2:A-KA<, 2!/-2&R?-=?,
,,-~.-=-/A-3-2gJ/-0<,
,.3-0:A-.R/-/A-2!/-3A-/?,
,.3-0:A-.R/-/A-3-gR$?-0<,
,M-%/-:.?-0-,R2-3A-:I<,
,8J?-?R, ,:.A<-,2?-=?-L%-2-.%-:V?-2-.%-,R2-L-.%-gR$?-L-.%3*3-$8$-;J->J?-GA?-2v-L:A-;=-.%-3A-$/?-0:A-M%-:.?-i3?-i3P%?-?R, ,.J?-/-?J3?-43-0-?R$?-2.J/-0-.J-$*A?-GA-i3-.LJ-.2-3:A-
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
237
2.1.4.3. Explanation of the reason for that (464:6)
Conventional truths serve as method and
Ultimate truth arises from method.
Those who do not understand the division into those two
Enter bad paths due to wrong thinking. (80)
As for the reason why, withering before the two truths, one does not
accomplish liberation, conventional truths—the dependently related
phenomena consisting in aggregates, elements, and sense fields that are
taught by the completely awakened ones—serve as the method for realizing the ultimate. From the SÒtra of the King of Meditative Stabilizations:a
Whoever listens to and whoever teaches
The letterless dharma
Sticks feathers on the unchanging;
Still, one listens and one teaches.
Showing the ultimate truth arises from method because, depending upon
conventional truths, the ultimate is shown and, from mastery of that, the
ultimate—nonabiding nirv›˚a—is achieved. From N›g›rjuna’s Treatise
on the Middle Way:b
Without depending upon conventions,
The ultimate cannot be shown.
Without realization of the ultimate,
Nirv›˚a will not be achieved.55
Here, arisen from method, effect, what is to be achieved, what is be realized, what is to be viewed by the wisdom of equipoise,c and nonabiding
nirv›˚a are synonyms.
Therefore, those such as the Proponents of Mind Only who do not
understand the division into those two truths as [presented in] this Middle Way School enter bad paths slapped together by their own wrong
thinking. Departing from the assertions of the triumphant, resplendent,
transcendent one,d they have become perverse.56
a
b
c
d
mdo ting ‘dzin rgyal po, sam›dhir›jasÒtra
dbu ma’i bstan bcos, madhyamakash›stra
mnyam bzhag, sam›hita
bcom ldan ‘das, bhagavan
238
The Moon of Wisdom
=$?-:.A-v<-$%-$A?-3A->J?-0-.J-/A-<%-$A-i3-gR$-=R$-0?-.<-2:A-=3%/-0<-8$?-+J, 2&R3-w/-:.?-GA-28J.-0-=?-KA/-&A-=R$-+-:I<-<R,
$*A?-0-=, !/-mR2-.%-:$=-2-%%-2-.%-, =%-.%-:$=-2-%%-2$*A?, .%-0R-=, !/-mR2-.$R?-0:A-.2%-$A?-#?-]%?-5=, :)A$gJ/-=-3A-$%-/-#?-3A-=J/-0:A-5=, :)A$-gJ/-=-!/-mR2-.$$-3A-/?-0:A5=-.%-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
,)A-v<-HR.-GA?-$8/-.2%-.%R?-:.R.-v<,
,!/-mR2-G%-/A-2.$-$A?-#?-3-]%?,
,:V?-KA<-:.A-.$-3J.-G%-;R.-.R-8J?,
,:)A$-gJ/-%R<-L?-2.$-/A-5-2<-LJ.,
81
)A-v<-HR.-GA?-$8/-.2%-$A-.%R?-0R-:1$?-0:A-;J->J?-GA-gR$?-L<-:.R.0-v<-!/-mR2-G%-/A-.2-3-0-2.$-$A?-<%-.2%-.-L?-/?-<%-=$?-=#?-3-]%?-+J, :R-/-!/-mR2-GA-i3-$8$-)A-v<-:)R$-&J-/, :)A$-gJ/$8$-0:A-:V?-2:3-.$R?-0:A-KA<-!/-mR2-:.A-.$-.R/-=-3J.-G%-:)A$gJ/-#R-/-=-P$?-0?-;R.-.R-8J?-:)A$-gJ/-#R-/:A-%R<-L?-/?-2.$-/A-52<-LJ.-.J, .J:A-eJ?-?-2eR.-0-/A, !/-mR2-GA-(R?-;%-.$-0<-P2-0<:.R.-0-.J-2^R$-0:A-(J.-;A/-0:A-KA<, 2&R3-w/-:.?-GA?-:)A$-gJ/-0.%-z/-&A$-lR.-GAA, %-/A-:)A$-gJ/-.%-3A-lR.-.J, $%-:)A$-gJ/-/-;R.-0<:.R.-0-.J-/A-%?-G%-;R.-0<-28J.-.R, ,$%-:)A$-gJ/-/-3J.-0<-:.R.-0-.J/A-%-;%-3J.-0<-28J.-.R, ,8J?-$?%?-0-v<-<R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
239
2.2 Abandoning contradictions with regard to having made
the refutation (466:2)
This has two parts:
1 Abandoning contradictions with concealers
2 Abandoning contradictions with scripture
2.2.1 Abandoning contradictions with concealers (466:3)
This has three parts:
1 How concealers are affirmed due to necessity
2 How they would not be affirmed if they did not appear to the world
3 How concealers cannot be refuted for the world
2.2.1.1. How concealers are affirmed due to necessity (466:3)
While you assert an other powered thing,
We have not affirmed even concealers.
For the result, although they do not exist, we say they exist;
We expound for the perspective of the world. (81)
Just as you assert an other powered thing to be the object realized by a
superior’s wisdom, we of the Middle Way School have not independently
affirmed even concealers in our own system. One may wonder, “In that
case, how is the presentation of concealers posited?” For the result or purpose of engaging the world, although these concealers do not exist in fact,
since they are customary only in the world, we say they exist. We expound
for the perspective of the world alone, for we follow their lead in order to
refute the assertion that concealing phenomena are established authentically. This accords with the statement by the triumphant, resplendent, and
transcendent one:
The world quarrels with me, but I do not quarrel with the world.
What the world asserts as existent, I also assert as existent. What the
world asserts as nonexistent, I also assert as nonexistent.57
240
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-/A,
,)A-v<-1%-0R-%%?-/?-8A<-8$?-0,
,.P-2&R3-i3?-=-;R.-0-3A/-.J-v<,
,:)A$-gJ/-=-;%-3J.-/-.J-28A/-:.A,
,:)A$-gJ/-=?-G%-;R.-&J?-2.$-3A-5,
82
,:R-/-.2-3-0-HR., !/-mR2-:)A$-gJ/-.:%-:)A$-gJ/-IA-%R<-3J.-.R-8J?0:A-,-~.-LJ.-0:A-{2?-;R.-.3-8J-/, >A/-+-;R.-+J, )A-v<-1%-0R:C-z$3-=?-0-%%?-/?-8A-2-M%-:.?-?-8$?-0:A-.P-2&R3-0-i3?-=-!/mR2-;R.-0-3A/-0-.J-v<-:)A$-gJ/-;%-3J.-/-.P-2&R3-0:A-1%-0R-.J-28A/-.!/-mR2-:.A-.$-:)A$-gJ/-IA-P$?-0-=-2vR?-/?-G%-;R.-&J?-2.$-3A-5!J, 3-.J.-0:A-:)A$-gJ/-0-.$-=-,-~.-.-!/-mR2-;R.-0<-P$?->A%-52-/-/A-.J:A-eJ?-2eR.-.-.J-v<-5-=, 3J.-0<-P$?->A%-5-2-/-/A-.J:A-eJ?2eR.-.-.J-v<-LJ.-.J, !/-mR2-,-~.-.:%-<%-=$?-GA-;R.-3J.-$%-.-;%#?-3-]%?-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
241
2.2.1.2 How they would not be affirmed if they did not
appear to the world (468:5)
Having abandoned the aggregates, they enter into peace;
For foe destroyers, they do not exist. Like that,
When they do not exist even for the world,
We do not say, “Similarly, these exist,” [contingent] upon the
world. (82)
They may ask, “In that case, is there an occasion when you of the Middle
Way School adopt the convention, ‘Not even in the world do concealers
exist for the world’s perspective’?” There most definitely is. Having abandoned a remainder of the aggregates without omission, foe destroyersa
enter into peace, [which is to say] nirv›˚a. For them, concealers do not
exist. Like that, when they do not exist even for the world, we do not say,
“Similar to the aggregates of a foe destroyer, these concealers exist,” contingent upon the world’s customs. When people of the world who have
not analyzed proclaim and propound that concealers exist conventionally,
we follow them and say similarly. When they proclaim and propound that
[concealers] do not exist, we follow them and do similarly. This is because
within our own system we have not affirmed anything at all—neither existence nor nonexistence—not even as concealment and convention.58
a dgra bcom pa, arhat
242
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
,$=-+J-HR.-=-:)A$-gJ/-3A-$/R.-/,
,:)A$-gJ/-*A.-vR?-:.A-/A-.$$-0<-IA?,
,HR.-.%-:)A$-gJ/-:.A<-/A-lR.-IA?-.%-,
,KA-/?-!R2?-w/-2.$-$A?-2!J/-0<-L,
83
$=-+J-?J3?-43-0-HR.-<%-:)A$-gJ/-.%-3,/-0<-:)$-0<-5-2-/-HR.-=:)A$-gJ/-P$?-0?-3A-$/R.-/-:)A$-gJ/-*A.-=-2vR?-/?-3-.J.-0<P$?-0:A-!/-mR2-:.A-/A-.$$-0<-IA?->A$-.%-, %?-G%-HR.-=-!R%$.2-0-!J-PR$?-L:R, ,.J:A-5K-:)A$-gJ/-P$?-0?-$/R.-/-/A-3-.J.-0<3,/-:)$-5-{2?-?-3-.J.-0:A-P$?-0-3A-:$R$-0<-2+%-~R3?-?-#R.<A$?-=, P$?-0:A-!/-mR2-3-.J.-0:A-%R<-;R.-3J.-?J3?-43-0-HR.-.%:)A$-gJ/-0-.$-:.A<-/A-lR.-0<-IA?-.%-, HR.-o=-/-#R-2R-&$-HR.-=2!J/-0<-L-!J, #R-2R-&$-G%-!/-mR2-?J=-2-*A.-:.R.-0:A-KA<, :R/-+J:)A$-gJ/-IA?-HR.-13-0<-L?-/-/A, KA-/?-!R2?-w/-:)A$-gJ/-0-2.$$A?-2!J/-0<-L:R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
243
2.2.1.3 How concealers cannot be refuted for the world
(469:2)
If the world does not harm you,
Then, contingent upon the world itself, negate these.
You and the world, debate here!
Afterward, I shall rely upon the powerful. (83)
If you Proponents of Mind Only expound in harmonious engagement
with the world, then the customs of the world do not harm you. Then,
contingent upon the world itself, negate these concealers that without
analysis have become customary. We will assist and accompany you. At
that time, if the world’s customs harm you, then, on this occasion of
expounding in harmonious engagement without analyzing, it would be
reasonable to rest in equanimity, without negating customs that have not
been subjected to analysis. You Proponents of Mind Only, debate here
with those of the world whether or not custom’s concealments exist for a
perspective uninformed by analysis. If you win, we will rely upon you
because we too want to remove concealers. However, if the world defeats
you, afterward, I shall rely upon the powerful people of the world.59
244
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=, ?-2&-0:A-3.R:C-.R/-.%-:$=-2-%%-2-.%-, 3.R-$8/-IA.R/-.%-:$=-2-%%-2-$*A?, .%-0R-=, 43-1-LJ.-0R-$8/-.$$-0:A.R/-&/-.-2>., $9$?-=?-?J3?-$4S-2R:C-.R/-&/-.-2>., $9$??J3?-;R.-3J.-35%?-0<-2!/-0-$?3, .%-0R-=, 3.R:C-.$R%?-02>., .J-3.R-$8/-IA?-12-0-$*A?,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
245
2.2.2 Abandoning contradictions with scripture (475:1)
This has two parts:
1 Abandoning contradiction with the meaning of the SÒtra of the Ten
Grounds
2 Abandoning contradiction with the meaning of other sÒtras
2.2.2.1 Abandoning contradiction with the meaning of the
SÒtra of the Ten Grounds (475:2)
This has three parts:
1 Explaining the term only as having the meaning of refuting another
creator
2 Explaining [it] as having the meaning that mind is emphasized over
form
3 Showing that form and mind are equally existent or nonexistent
2.2.2.1.1 Explaining the term only as having the meaning of
refuting another creator (475:2)
This has two parts:
1 Explaining the sÒtra’s intention
2 That is established by another sÒtra
246
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
,3%R/-I<-3%R/-KR$?-L%-(2-?J3?-.0:-;A?,
,YA.-$?3-i3->J?-43-.-$%-gR$?-0,
,g$-2.$-LJ.-0R-2!$-0-gR$?-KA<-.J?,
,LJ.-0-0R-/A-?J3?-43-;A/-0<-gR$?,
84
?-S$-0-3%R/-.-I<-0<-(R?-GA-.LA%?-=-3%R/-.-KR$?-0:A-L%-(2-?J3?.0:-;A?-YA.-0-$?3-i3->J?-43-.-$%-gR$?-0<-$?%?-0:A-.R/-/A,
YA.-$?3-IA-:V?-2-:.A:A-o<-I<-0:A-LJ.-0R-3-.J.-0:A-:)A$-gJ/-,A3,/-P$?-P2-GA-(-/?-?J3?-43-=-:)R$-0-;A/-+J, P$?-0?-3-P20<-2.J/-$*A?-.%-:$=-2:A-]R-z/-*J?-.%-, !/-2g$?-GA?-1R-2+$?0:A-YA.-$?3-IA-LJ.-o<-g$-2.$-LJ.-0R-2!$-0-gR$?-0:A-KA<-.-;A/-0:AKA<-+J, ?J3?-.0:-.J?-,-~.-$8/-%R<-YA.-$?3-IA-LJ.-0R:C-o-/A-?J3?43-;A/-0<-gR$?-0-;A/-0:A-KA<-+J, .J-=?-$8/-YA.-$?3-IA-o-.%-nJ//A-.J.-/-:$<-;%-3-fJ.-&A%-, 3-.J.-P$?-%R-/-;%-:)A$-gJ/-.%3,/-0<-.J-=?-$8/-.-3-P$?-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
247
2.2.2.1.1.1 Explaining the sūtra’s intention (475:3)
Bodhisattvas on the Manifest, who are approaching,
Realize the three existences to be consciousness only.
In order to realize the negation of a permanent creative self, they
Realize the creator to be mind only. (84)
The meaning of the statement that bodhisattvas on the sixth ground, the
Manifest,a who are approaching the element of qualities, realize the three
existences to be consciousness only is that, by way of a general harmony
of customs established in the world but not subjected to analysis, the creator serving as the cause for the three existences that are the result is posited
as mind only. Why so? In order to realize the negation of a permanent
creative self that, without being established through custom, is fantasized
by the innate and acquired awarenesses that contradict the two truths as
the creative causeb of the three existences, those bodhisattvas realize that,
conventionally, for the perspective of others, the creative cause of the three
existences is mind only. This is because, when the causes and conditions
of the three existences are analyzed, nothing else is found anywhere, and
as for the perspective of customs that have not been subjected to analysis,
customs other than those do not accord with the world.60
a mngon du gyur pa, abhimukhı
b byed rgyu, kara˚ahetu
248
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=-3.R-:$R.-0-.%-, .J:A-.R/-2>.-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
,.J-KA<-]R-w/-]R-/A-:1J=-L:A-KA<,
,=%-!<-$>J$?-3.R-.J-=?-!/-3HJ/-IA?,
,3-!J$?-%R-3,R/-<A-:)R3?-%$-<%-28A/-,
,hR-eJ-:.A-/A-.$R%?-0-2&.-KA<-$?%?,
85
,3.R-.J:A-.R/-3.R-$8/-IA?-2>.-0-/A, :1$?-0-=%-!<-$>J$?-3.R-.J=?-!/-3HJ/-IA?-3-!J$?-i3?-GA-2.$-.%-$4S-2R-?R$?-LJ.-0R<-?J3?0:A-v-2-%/-0:A-<A-2R:C-%R-3,R/-0R-:)R3?-LJ.-GA-%$-$A-<%-28A/-hR-eJ:A-,R$:S-2-:.A-/A-?J3?-43-.-$?%?-0:A-.$R%?-0-;R%?-?-2&.-0<-L-2:AKA<-$?%?-0-;A/-+J, ?J3?-43-LJ.-0R-;A/-0-.J:A-KA<-]R-w/-L%-(2?J3?-.0:-i3?-GA-2.$-3J.-gR$?-0:A-]R-/A-:1J=-2<-L-2:A-KA<-)A-{.-.$?%?-/,
,$%-9$-o/-.%-1%-0R-.%-,
,.J-28A/-nJ/-.%-h=-.$-.%-,
,$4S-2R-.2%-K$-LJ.-0R-i3?,
,?J3?-43-.-/A-%?-2>.-.R,
,8J?-?R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
249
2.2.2.1.1.2 That is established by another sūtra (477:2)
This has two parts:
1 Setting forth the sÒtra
2 The explanation of its meaning
2.2.2.1.1.2.1 Setting forth the sūtra (477:2)
Therefore, to enable the awareness of the intelligent to increase,
In the SÒtra of the Descent into Laºka the All Knowing One
Uttered this speech, vajra in nature, that destroys the lofty
mountains of the forders
In order that the intention may be discerned. (85)
The meaning of that sÒtra is explained by another sÒtra: in the Sublime
SÒtra of the Descent into Laºka,a the all knowing one uttered this speech,
whose nature resembles vajra lightning that destroys the lofty mountains
of the forders’ bad viewsb that consider a self, the principal, and so on to
be the creator, in order that the intention of the statement regarding mind
only may be discerned. Why? Mind only is the creator; therefore, [this
was said] to enable the intelligent bodhisattvas’ awareness realizing selflessness to increase. How was this said?
Person, continuum, and aggregates,
Similarly, conditions and particles,
The principal and Ishvara—these creators
I explain as only mind.61
a ’phags pa lang kar gshegs pa’i mdo, ›ryalaºk›vat›rasÒtra
b lta ba, d¸˝h˛i
250
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-/A,
,)A-28A/-<%-$A-2!/-2&R?-.J-.J-=?,
,3-!J$?-i3?-GA?-$%-9$-?R$?-.J-.$
,5?-0-.J-.$-LJ.-0R<-3-$9A$?-/?,
,o=-2?-?J3?-43-:)A$-gJ/-LJ.-0R<-$?%?,
86
,<%-<%-$A-P2-3,:A-2!/-2&R?-)A-v-2-.J-.%-.J-=?-3-!J$?-i3?-GA?$%-9$-.%-$4S-2R-=-?R$?-0-.J-.$-LJ.-0R<-5?-0-.%-, <%-#J:/$-$%9$-.%-,R2-0-.%-(.-3A-9-2-.%-!/-$8A-?R$?-LJ.-0R<-2+$?-0-.J-.$-,~.-.-;%-LJ.-0R<-3-$9A$?-/?-,-~.-.-o=-2?-?J3?-43-:)A$-gJ/-LJ.0R<-$?%?-?R-8J?-0-/A-=%-$>J$?-GA-3.R-.R/-;A/-/R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
251
2.2.2.1.1.2.2 The explanation of its meaning (477:5)
In their own treatises,
The forders propound the person and so on.
Not seeing those as the creator,
The victorious one spoke of mind only as the creator of the world.
(86)
In their own treatises on tenets, the forders propound the person, the
principal, and so on to be the creator. Even in our own schools, the person, achievement, not wasting, the base of all, and so forth are designated
as the creator. Not seeing those as the creator even conventionally, the victorious one spoke of mind only as the creator of the world conventionally.
This is the meaning of the SÒtra of the Descent into Laºka.62
252
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=-3.R<-2!/, o?-0<-2>., .R/-2#-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
,.J-*A.-o?-=-?%?-o?-2~.-)A-28A/,
,.J-28A/-?J3?-43-$4S<-I<-:)A$-gJ/-=,
,3.R-=?-?J3?-43-8J?-$?%?-$9$?-/A-:.A<,
,:$R$-0-.J-v<-3.R-;A-.R/-3-;A/, 87
43-1?-LJ.-0R-.$$-0-;A/-IA, >J?-0-.J:A-;=-KA-<R=-;R.-0-.$$-0-$+/3A/-&J?-!R/-0-/A, )A-v<-.J-#R-/-*A.-=-]R-o?-0-=-?%?-o?-8J?-5B$-}-33A-3%R/-0<-L?-/?-2~.-0-)A-v-2-.J-28A/-?J3?-43-$4S-2R<-I<-0:A:)A$-gJ/-=:%-$9$?-?R$?-$8/-i3?-$4S-2R-;A/-0-2!$-0?-3A-3%R/0<-L?-/?, 3.R-=?-#3?-$?3-0:A-LJ.-0R-?J3?-43-3R-8J?-$?%?-0;A/-0-=?-$8/-.-?J3?-43-8A$-#R-/-;R.-GA, $9$?-/A-:.A<-3J.-.R-8J?:$R$-0-.J-v<-3.R:C-.R/-3-;A/-/R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
253
2.2.2.1.2 Explaining [it] as having the meaning that mind is
emphasized over form (479:4)
This has three parts:
1 Brief indication
2 Extensive explanation
3 Summary of the topic
2.2.2.1.2.1.Brief indication (479:4)
Buddha is explained as expansion into suchness;
Like that, for the world where mind only is principal,
In the sÒtra mind only was said; that form is negated here
Is not the sÒtra’s meaning. (87)
We shall show that the term only refutes a creator but does not in any way
refute the external existence of the object of that consciousness. Buddha
is explained as the expansion of awareness into suchness; the earlier words
have been made invisible. Like that, for the world where mind only is
principal, that others such as form are principal is refuted; making [some
of those words] invisible, in the sÒtra it was said that the creator of the
three realms is mind only. Departing from that, elsewhere it is said that
only mind exists and that form does not exist here; such negation is not
the sÒtra’s meaning.63
254
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=, $9$?-3J.-GA-?J3?-?-2.J/-/-3.R-.%-:$=, ?J3?-$4S2R-;A/-0:A-o-35/, $9$?-$4S-2R-3A/-0:A-o-35/-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
,$=-+J-:.A-.$-?J3?-43-8J?-3HJ/-/?,
,.J-=?-$9$?-*A.-.$$-0<-36.-/-/A,
,a<-;%-.J-=?-2.$-*A.-(J/-0R?-?J3?,
,$+A-3$-=?-=?-*J?-0<-&A-KA<-$?%?, 88
3.R:C-.R/-/A-.2-3-0-#R-2R-v<-5-.$R?-?R-8J?-!R/-0-/A, HR.-v<-$=-+J#3?-$?3-0R-:.A-.$-?J3?-43-;A/-&A%-, ?J3?-/A-.R/-.3-0<-2.J/-0<P2-0:A-(R?-?R, ,8J?-3HJ/-/?-?-2&-0:A-3.R-.J-=?-$9$?-*A.-.$$0<-36.-/-/A, a<-;%-3.R-.J-=?-mR$?-0:A-?%?-o?-2.$-*A.-(J/-0R??J3?-i3-0<->J?-0-$+A-3$-3-<A$-0-.%-:.-LJ.-GA-=?-=?-*J?-0<-&A:AKA<-$?%-<A$?-+J-3A-<A$?-0<-,=, i3->J?-<%-$A-2.$-*A.-GA?-.R/-.30<-P2-/-3-<A$-0-.%-:.-LJ.-GA-o-nJ/-=-3A-2vR?-0:A-KA<, .J?-/-?J3?<%-28A/-IA?-;R.-0-3A/-+J, 3-<A$-0-.%-:.-LJ.-?R$?-KA/-&A-=R$-$A-nJ/;R.-3J.-GA-eJ?-?-:PR-wR$-LJ.-0:A-KA<, 0<-$%-/A-<2-<A2-GA-eJ?-?-:PRwR$-LJ.-0-28A/-/R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
255
2.2.2.1.2.2 Extensive explanation (480:1)
This has three parts:
1 Were form not to exist and [appearances to be] true as mind, this
would contradict the sÒtra
2 The reason why mind is principal
3 The reason why form is not principal
2.2.2.1.2.2.1 Were form not to exist and [appearances to be]
true as mind, this would contradict the sūtra (480:1)
If, knowing, “These are mind only,”
He refuted form itself in that [sÒtra],
Why did the great being again in that [sÒtra] say
That mind is produced from bewilderment and actions? (88)
We shall show that the meaning of the sÒtra must be expounded as we of
the Middle Way School do. If, as you say, knowing, “These three realms
are only mind and mind is a phenomenon that is established ultimately
and truly,” he refuted form itself in that SÒtra of the Ten Grounds, why
would it be reasonable for the completely awakened Buddha, the great
being, again in that sÒtra to say that mind, which is consciousness, is produced from bewilderment, which is ignorance, and conditioned actions?
It follows that it would not be reasonable because, if consciousness were
established ultimately by its own intrinsic nature, it would not be contingent upon the ignorance and conditioned action that are its cause and condition. Therefore, mind does not exist inherently because it coincides with
the existence and nonexistence of perverse conditions such as ignorance
and conditioned action. This resembles the appearance of hair coinciding
with a disease of the eye.64
256
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-/A,
,?J3?-*A.-GA?-/A-?J3?-&/-:)A$-gJ/-.%-,
,$R.-GA-:)A$-gJ/->A/-+-$-5S$?-:$R.,
,:PR-2-3-=?-=?-=?-*J?-0<-$?%?,
,?J3?-%%?-/?-/A-=?-G%-;R.-3-;A/,
89
,?J3?-*A.-GA?-/A-=?-*R/-2?$?-0?-:#R<-2:A-(R?-,3?-&.-$%-9$i3?-GA?-,R2-0<-LJ.-.J, ?J3?-&/-IA-:)A$-gJ/-.M=-2-/?-YA.-l:A-2<.%-, $R.-GA-:)A$-gJ/-_%-.GA=-/?-:R$-3A/-IA-2<->A/-+-$-5S$?-:$R.0<-LJ.-0:A-KA<, .J:%-k-L:A-3.R%?-?R$?-/A-,/-3R%-3A/-0:A-=?-GA?2*J.-=, 0E-?R$?-/A-?J3?-&/-,/-3R%-2:A-=?-GA?-2*J.-.J,
)A-{.-.,
,?J3?-&/-=?-GA-.2%-$A?-<A,
,/$-0R-.?-?-*J?-+J-.0J<,
,?J3?-.M=-3,R-<A?-:)A$-gJ/-.,
,35S/-.%-<A/-(J/->A%-28A/-/R,
,8J?-$?%?-?R, .J?-/-KA-/%-$A-:PR-2-3-=?-0-,/-3R%-.%-,/-3R%-3A/0:A-=?-=?-*J?-0<-$?%?->A%-, =?-G%-?J3?-.%-2&?-0-#R-/?-?R$$A-?J3?-%%?-/?-/A-=?-G%-?R$-0-;R.-0-3-;A/-/R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
257
2.2.2.1.2.2.2 The reason why mind is principal (482:6)
Mind itself sets out the extremely various
Worlds of sentient beings and worlds serving as vessels.
It is said that all migrators without omission are produced from
actions;
Mind having been abandoned, actions are no more. (89)
Mind itself accumulates actions and afflictions, causing persons to achieve
all the phenomena of sa˙s›ra. This is because it sets out the extremely
various worlds of sentient beings, ranging from the hells to the peak of
existence,a and worlds serving as vessels, ranging from the ma˚˜ala of
wind to the highest land.b Moreover, the patterns of a peacock’s colors and
so on are generated by uncommon actions, and lotuses and so on are generated by actions common to [more than one] sentient being. As is said:
By the power of the actions of sentient beings,
Black mountains are produced in a timely manner; for example,
Weapons in a world that is a hell of sentient beings,
And jeweled trees in the worlds of the higher areas.
...Therefore, it is said that all migrators without omission, non-Buddhists
and Buddhists, are produced from common and uncommon actions.
Actions are accumulated only by those who have minds. Mind having
been abandoned, no more actions are accumulated.65
a srid rtse, bhav›gra
b ’og min, akani˝h˛ha
258
The Moon of Wisdom
,$?3-0-/A,
,$=-+J-$9$?-;R.-3R.-GA-.J-=-/A,
,?J3?-28A/-LJ.-0-0R-*A.-;R.-3-;A/,
90 !#
,$=-+J-$9$?-G%-,-~.-.-?J3?-28A/-;R.-3R.-GA, .J-=-/A-?J3?-28A/:PR-2:A-o-=?-?R$-0:A-LJ.-0-0R-*A.-/A-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, 2J3?-0R-=-]R:A-L2-;R.-0-3-;A/-0:A-KA<,
$?3-0-/A,
,.J?-/-?J3?-=?-$8/-0:A-LJ.-0-0R,
,2^R$-$A-$9$?-/A-2!$-0-3-;A/-/R,
90 $%
,2.$-.%-$4S-2R-?R$?-.%-?J3?-=-LJ.-0R-;A/-3A/-IA-lR.-0-;R.-GA,
$9$?-=-;R.-0-3-;A/-0-.J?-/-?J3?-=?-$8/-0:A-$4S-2R-?R$?-LJ.-0-0R;A/-0-2^R$-$A, $9$?-/A-LJ.-0R<-2!$-.$R?-0-3-;A/-+J, .0J<-/;=-$&A$-=-lR.-0:A-o=-0R-$*A?-=?-$&A$-2+R/-/?-$&A$-$A?-;=-,R20-/, $*A?-!-=-3#R-2:A-:2%?-3A-:.R/-0-28A/-?J3?-.%-$4S-2R-?R$?$%-LJ.-0R<-:.R.-G%-$9$?-3#R-2?-.$$-0<-3A-<A$?->A%-, .J-3-.J.0<-,-~.-.-;R.-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
259
2.2.2.1.2.2.3 The reason why form is not principal (484:2)
Suppose that form does exist; even so,
The creator itself is not there, as it is with mind. (90ab)
Suppose that, like mind, form does exist as a convention; even so, the
cause of migrators, the creator itself that accumulates actions, is not there,
as it is with mind because matter does not have the activity of awareness.66
2.2.2.1.2.3 Summary of the topic (484:3)
Thus, a creator other than mind
Has been refuted, but form has not been negated. (90cd)
There is debate about the creator: is it the self, the principal, and so on, or
is it mind? In any case, no one contends that form is [the creator]. Thus,
a creator other than mind, such as the principal, has been refuted, but
there has been no need to negate form as the creator. Why? For example,
when two kings contest for one land, one of them having been cast out,
the other wins the land. Neither of them casts out the subjects, whom they
need. Similarly, whatever is asserted to be the creator—mind, or the principal and so on—it is not reasonable to refute form, as it is needed and, so
long as it is not analyzed, does exist conventionally.67
260
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-=, $*A?-!-2.J/-$*A?-;R.-3J.-35%?-0-.%-, 2.J/-$*A?2>A$?-/?-m?-3A-:P2-0-.%-, .R/-2#-2-$?3, .%-0R-=, <A$?-0.%-, =%-$A-12-LJ.-35%?-0-$*A?, .%-0R-=, *J?-:1$?-$*A?-GA-]R%R<-35%?-0-.%-, .J.-3-.J.-.-35%?-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
,:)A$-gJ/-0-;A-.J-*A.-=-$/?-=,
,1%-0R-:)A$-gJ/-P$?-+J-s-(<-;R.,
,.J-*A.-;J->J?-:(<-2<-:.R.-0-/,
,i=-:LR<-0-=-.J-s-:L%-3A-:I<,
91
,KA-.R/-3J.-=-/%->J?-0-;R.-0-/A-LA?-]R-=?-;A/-/3-:1$?-0:A-$9A$?-%R/?-;A/, .%-0R-v<-/-.J-%R<-.J-s-&<-;R.-.J, $R%-.-2!/-0-v<-]R-:)A$gJ/-0-;A-3,R%-2:A-.J-#R-/-*A.-=-$/?-0-=-/A-1%-0R-s-(<-;R.-35%?-?:)A$-gJ/-=-P$?-0-!J-.J-*A.-GA-KA<, $*A?-0-v<-/-i=-:LR<-0-=-.J-%R<s-&<-:L%-2<-3A-:I<-+J, .J-*A.-gR$?-0:A-;J->J?-:(<-2<-:.R.-0-/-!JgR$?-0-/-3R?-35/-,3?-&.-*J-2<-8A-2:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
261
2.2.2.1.3 Showing that form and mind are equally existent or
nonexistent (484:5)
This has three parts:
1 Both are equivalent in the existence or nonexistence of the two truths
2 A substantial entity will not be established when the two truths have
been demolished
3 Summary of the topic
2.2.2.1.3.1 Both are equivalent in the existence or
nonexistence of the two truths (484:6)
This has two parts:
1 In reasoned proofs, they are equivalent
2 In scriptural proofs, they are equivalent
2.2.2.1.3.1.1 In reasoned proofs, they are equivalent (484:6)
This has two parts:
1 They are equivalent for the perspective of the awareness of ordinary
and superior persons
2 They are equivalent when analyzed and when not analyzed
2.2.2.1.3.1.1.1 They are equivalent for the perspective of the
awareness of ordinary and superior persons (485:1)
For those who abide in worldly suchness,
The aggregates customary in the world, all five, exist.
When the wisdom of suchness is asserted to dawn,
For a yogin, the five will not arise. (91)
Is the nonexistence of external objects and the existence of internal consciousness [posited] through the awareness of children or from the perspective of the vision of superiors? If [they posit this from the viewpoint
of ] the first, for their perspective all five [aggregates] exist for the very reason that, as shown above, for those who abide in the suchness seen by a
worldly mind, in the world it is customary that all five aggregates equally
exist. If [they posit this from the viewpoint of ] the second, none of the
five will arise for a yogin’s perspective because, when the wisdom that
realizes suchness is asserted to dawn, which is to say when it is realized,
all elaborations and signs are thoroughly pacified.68
262
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
,$9$?-3J.-/-/A-?J3?-;R.-3-:6B/-&A$
,?J3?-;R.-*A.-/:%-$9$?-3J.-3-:6B/-8A$ 92 !#
$9$?-3J.-?J3?-;R.-/A-.J.-3-.J.-$*A?-!<-3A-:,.-.J,
.J.-5K$9$?-3J.-/-/A-?J3?-;R.-3-:6B/-&A$-!J-.J-$*A?-2vR?-28$-;A/-0:A-KA<,
3-.J.-/-/A-?J3?-;R.-*A.-/:%-$9$?-3J.-3-:6B/-&A$-!J, .J-:)A$-gJ/-/;R.-0<-P$?-0:A-KA<,
$*A?-0-/A,
,.J-.$->J?-<2-5=-3.R<-?%?-o?-GA?,
,35%?-0<-%%?->A%-3%R/-0:A-(R?-=?-$?%?, 92 $%
,$9$?-3J.-?J3?-;R.-.J-%J?-0-.%-S%-2:A-=%-$%-$A-;%-.R/-.-3A-:,.-.J,
$9$?-?J3?-.J-.$-;3-?R$?->J?-<2-5=-3.R<-$9$?-/A-<%-28A/-IA?!R%-%R-8J?-0-/?-i3->J?-/A-<%-28A/-IA?-!R%-%R-8J?-?%?-o?-GA?-35%?0<-%%?->A%-, 3%R/-0:A-(R?-=?-<%-,A:A-35/-*A.-?R$?-<2-+-.LJ-2?s-(<-;R.-0<-$?%?-0:A-KA<-<R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
263
2.2.2.1.3.1.1.2 They are equivalent when analyzed and when
not analyzed (485:3)
Where form does not exist, do not conceive that mind exists.
When mind exists, do not conceive that form does not exist. (92ab)
That form does not exist and mind does exist is feasible neither when they
are analyzed nor when they are not analyzed. At the time of analysis, where
form does not exist, do not conceive that mind exists because those two
are posited contingently. When they are not analyzed, when mind exists,
do not conceive that form does not exist because in the world it is customary that they exist.69
2.2.2.3.1.2 In scriptural proofs, they are equivalent (485:4)
In the sÒtras on the way of incisive knowledge, the Buddha
Abandoned them equivalently, and in the Manifest Knowledge he
taught them. (92cd)
That form does not exist and that mind exists is not feasible as the meaning of any scripture, neither the definitive nor those requiring interpretation because, in the sÒtras on the way of incisive knowledge, such as the
mothers,70 from saying “form is empty of inherent nature” on up to saying
“consciousness is empty of inherent nature,”71 the Buddha abandoned
those forms and minds equivalently, and in the Manifest Knowledge,a by
thoroughly distinguishing their specific and general characteristics,b he
taught that all five exist.72
a chos mngon pa, abhidharma
b spyi mtshan, s›m›nyalak˝ha˚a
264
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-/A,
,2.J/-$*A?-<A3-0-:.A-.$-2>A$-/?-G%-,
,HR.-GA-m?-/A-2!$-0?-:P2-3A-:I<,
93 !#
,$9$?-3J.-?J3?-;R.-.-5-2-/A-%=-2-.R/-3J.-;A/-+J, .J-v<-5-/-=%<A$?- P$?- 0- .%- 3,/- 0:A- )A- {.- 2>.- 0:A- 2.J/- $*A?- <A3- 0- :.A- .$2>A$-0<-:I<-=, .J-2>A$?-/?G%-HR.-GA-$8/-.2%-$A-m?-/A-2!$0?-:P2-0<-3A-:I<-2:A-KA<,
$?3-0-/A,
,.J-KA<-.J-v:A-<A3-0?-.%R?-$.R.-/?,
,.J-*A.-3-*J?-:)A$-gJ/-*J?-<A$-L,
93 $%
,.J?-/-.%R?-0R-,3?-&.-$.R.-/?-.J-*A.-.-3-*J?->A%-, :)A$-gJ/-IA-,-~.43-.-*J?-0<-<A$-0<-L-.$R?-+J, 2>.-0-.J:A-KA<-.J-v:A-=%-<A$?-GA-<A30?-:P2-0:A-KA<-<R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
265
2.2.2.1.3.2 A substantial entity will not be established when
the two truths have been demolished (485:6)
These stages of the two truths having been demolished,
Your substantial entity will have been negated, due to which it will
not be established. (93ab)
Propounding the nonexistence of form and the existence of mind is senseless hardship because, if you expound in that way, these stages of the two
truths just as they were explained in harmony with the customs of scripture and reasoning will be demolished, and when they have been demolished, your other powered substantial entity will have been negated, due
to which it will not be established.73
2.2.2.1.3.3 Summary of the topic (486:1)
Because of that, by such stages one must know that, from the
beginning, things
Are not produced in suchness and are produced for the world.
(93cd)
Thus, one must know that, from the beginning, all things are not produced in suchness and are produced as mere conventions for the world
because, on account of that explanation, this is established by such stages
of scripture and reasoning.74
266
The Moon of Wisdom
,$*A?-0-=, 3.R-=?-?J3?-43-.-$?%?-0-S%-.R/-.-2!/, .J:A-12-LJ.GA-=%-<A$?-2>., 8<-=-S%-%J?-GA-i3-.LJ-2!/-0-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
,3.R-#J-$%-=?-KA-<R=-$%-;R.-3A/,
,?J3?-/A-$-5S$?-$%-%R-8J?-$?%?-0,
,$9$?-=->A/-+-($?-$%-.J-.$-=,
,$9$?-2^R$-0-!J-.J-;%-S%-.R/-*A.,
94
,;%- ?- 2&- 0:A- 3.R- .R/- .J- .$- $A?- .J- v<- 2>.- .- ($- G%- =%- $8/- =??J3?-43-.-%J?-+J,
=%-$>J$?-=?,
,KA-<R=-$%-2-;R.-3J.-.J,
,?J3?-/A-$-5S$?-i3?-?-$%-,
,=?-.%-=R%?-,R.-$/?-:S-2,
,?J3?-43-.-/A-%?-2>.-.R,
,8J?-=?-/A-3A$-?R$?-.%-, ;=-/A-$9$?-?R$?-.%-, $/?-/A-$R.-GA-:)A$gJ/-+J, ?J3?-=?-KA-<R=-.-3-P2-0<-?J3?-43-.J-=?-=-?R$?-0<-$%-2-.J?J3?-=?-,-..-.-KA-<R=-v<-3%R/-0?-#3?-$?3-?J3?-43-3R-8J-/,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
267
2.2.2.2 Abandoning contradiction with the meaning of
other sūtras (486:2)
This has three parts:
1 Showing the statement of mind only in the sÒtra to be a meaning
that requires interpretation
2 Explaining the scriptures and reasonings that prove that
3 Ancillarily, showing the divisions into the meaning that requires
interpretation and the definitive meaning
2.2.2.2.1 Showing the statement of mind only in the sūtra to
be a meaning that requires interpretation (486:2)
In some sÒtras it was said,
“External appearances do not exist; mind appears as the varieties.”
Form is refuted for those exceptionally passionate about form;
They too are just meanings that require interpretation.a (94)
They may say, “The meaning of the SÒtra of the Ten Grounds may be forced
by those [reasonings] into such an explanation, but in other scriptures is
ascertained as mind only. From the SÒtra of the Descent into Laºka:
External appearances do not exist;
Mind appears as the varieties.
Bodies, resources, places, and such
I explain as only mind.
Bodies are the eyes and so forth. Objects are forms and so forth. Places are
the world that is the vessel. They are not established as something external to mind, for only mind appears as bodies and so forth. The appearance
looks to be different from mind, as if it were external. Therefore, the three
realms are only mind.”
a drang don, ney›rtha
268
The Moon of Wisdom
3.R- #J- $%- =?- KA- <R=- .R/- ;R.- 3A/- G%- ?J3?- *A.- =?- =- ?R$?- 0- $- 5S$?0<-$%-%R-8J?-$?%?-0-.J-/A-.$R%?-0-&/-;A/-+J, .$R%?-$8A-$9$?-=z$-0<-($?-0-.J:A-nJ/-IA?-($?-?R$?-=-8$?-/?-#A$-(J/-0R-?R$-&A%-,
5S$?- $*A?- =?- *3?- 0<- :I<- 2- $%- .J- .$- =- !/- 3HJ/- IA?- $9$?- GAnJ/- &/- IA- ($?- ?R$?- %R%- (J.- .- 3A- #$- 0- |R3- 0<- $?%?- 0- v<- $9$?2^R$-0-;A/-IA, .J-2^R$-/?-?J3?-;R.-(J.-.-.J<-2!/-0-3-;A/-0:A-KA<+J, 3.R-.J-;%-S%-.R/-*A.-.-$?%?-0:A-KA<,
$*A?-0-=-=%-.%-, <A$?-0:A-12-LJ.-$*A?, .%-0R-=, 3.R-:.A-S%-.R/;A/-0:A-12-LJ., .J?-:.A-:S:A-3.R-$8/-;%-S%-.R/-.-2!/-0-$*A?,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
269
In some sÒtras it was said, “External objects do not exist; mind itself
appears as the varieties, such as bodies. Those statements have an intention.a How so? The base for the intentionb is that there are some who, by
the condition of excessive passion for form, enter into desire and so on,
accumulate appalling ill deeds, and wither away from the two collections.
For those, just as the Knower of All taught meditation upon ugliness for
the purpose of abandoning desire and so forth that have form as their condition, so he refuted form. Having refuted that [i.e., form], he did not purposefully teach the existence of mind there, for those sÒtras too were taught
as just meanings that require interpretation.75
2.2.2.2.2 Explaining the scriptures and reasonings that prove
that (487:1)
This has two parts:
1 Scriptural proof
2 Reasoned proof
2.2.2.2.2.1 Scriptural proof (487:1)
This has two parts:
1 Proving this sÒtra to be one whose meaning requires interpretation
2 This shows other such sÒtras also to have meanings that require interpretation
a dgongs pa can
b dgongs gzhi
270
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
,:.A-/A-!R/-0?-S%-.R/-*A.-$?%?->A%-,
,:.A-/A-S%-.R/-*A.-.-<A$?-0?-:,.,
95 !#
,3.R- :.A- /A- :R$- /?- :(.- 0- v<- =%- $>J$?- ?- !R/- 0?- S%- .R/- *A.- .$?%?->A%-, :.A-/A-S%-.R/-*A.-.-:(.-:I<-IA-/A-<A$?-0?-:,.-.R,
$*A?-0-/A,
,i3-0-.J-v:A-3.R-#J-$8/-;%-/A,
,S%-.R/-*A.-.-=%-:.A?-$?=-2<-LJ.,
95 $%
,3.R-:.A-S%-.R/-;A/-0<-3-9., i3-<A$-0?-%J?-.R/-.-:.R.-0:A-1?-2!/2.$- 2.J/- IA- i3- 0- .J- v- 2:A- 3.R- .J- :1$?- 0- .$R%?- 0- %J?- :PJ=- ?R$?=?-2g$?-0-3J.-0-*A.-.%-, $8/-IA-.2%-;R.-0-*A.-.%-, ;R%?-?-P20-;R.-0-*A.-.R, ,8J?-.%-,
,=J/-0:A-i3-0<->J?-0-92-&A%-U,
,?-2R/-,3?-&.-(-2R:C-o/-v<-:22,
,2.$-+-gR$-0<-I<-/-3A-<%-8J?,
,LA?-0-i3?-=-%?-/A-.J-3-2!/,
,&J?-3%-.-:L%-2-$8/-;%-/A,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
271
2.2.2.2.2.1.1 Proving this sūtra to be one whose meaning
requires interpretation (487:2)
This, the Teacher said, is just a meaning that requires
interpretation;
That it is feasible just as a meaning that requires interpretation is
due to reasoning. (95ab)
As will be explained below, in the Descent into Laºka the Teacher said that
this sÒtra is a meaning that requires interpretation; that it is feasible just
as a meaning that requires interpretation is due to reasoning that will be
explained.
2.2.2.2.2.1.2 This shows other such sūtras also to have
meanings that require interpretation (487:3)
Also other sÒtras similar in aspect
This scripture clarifies as just meanings that require interpretation.
(95cd)
Not only is this sÒtra a meaning that requires interpretation, but also the
many other sÒtras taught by terms asserted by the Proponents of Perception to be of definitive meaning,a similar in aspect to self and truth, such
as [these passages from] the Sublime SÒtra Unravelling the Intention b and
so forth:
The ideational c is just nonexistent.
The other powered is just existent.
The thoroughly established d is just existent.
and:
a
b
c
d
nges don, nıt›rtha
dgongs pa nges par ‘grel pa’i mdo, sa˙dhinirmochanasÒtra
kun brtags, parikalpita
yongs su grub pa, parinishpanna
272
The Moon of Wisdom
,)A-v<-/.-0-/.-0-=,
,(/-0?-(/-i3?-$+R%-2-v<,
,?%?-o?-.J-28A/-?J3?-&/-=,
,?J3?-43-.-;%-<2-+-$?%?,
8J?-?R$?-GA-=%-:.A?-S%-.R/-*A.-.-$?=-2<-LJ.-.J, !R/-0?-?J3?-43$?%?- 0:%- $.=- L:A- 2?3- 0:A- H.- 0<- =- 2vR?- /?- $?%?- 0:A- KA<,
(/-0?-/.-.2%-,-..-GA?-.$-G%-(/-.-$+R%-2-28A/,
$*A?-0-/A,
,>J?-L-3J.-/->J?-0-2?=-2-/A,
,2.J-]$-fJ.-&J?-?%?-o?-i3?-GA?-$?%?-,
,>J?-L-3J.-/->J?-0-2!$-:P2-0?,
,.%-0R<->J?-L-.$$-0-36.-0-;A/,
96
,;=- >J?- L- 3J.- /- ;=- &/- >J?- 0- 2?=- 2- /A- 2.J- ]$- fJ.- &J?- ?%?- o?i3?-GA?-$?%?-+J, ;=-.%-;=-&/-2vR?-/?-28$-0:A-KA<, !R/-0?.A/-?R$?-2?R.-5S$?-}R/-.-:PR-2?-;J->J?-GA-5S$?-=-:)$-0-28A/-.%0R<, KA<-<R=-$%-2-;R.-3J.-.J, ,8J?-?R$?-GA?->J?-L-.$$-0<-36.-0;A/-+J, >J?-L-2.$-3J.-0<-gR$?-/-KA?->J?-0-2!$-0-*A.-:P2-0?-.J*A.-GA-KA<, .J:%->J?-L-3J.-/->J?-0-3J.-0-/A, <J?-:$:-<%-*A.-#R-/?gR$?-=, <J?-:$:-&%-9.-*J-2<-2!/-0?-G%-gR$?-0<-:I<-<R,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
273
“The appropriating consciousness, profound and subtle,
[Holds] all the seeds and flows like a river stream.
To conceive this as a self would be unsuitable.”
To children I have not taught that.
are clarified by this scripture:
Just as a physician gives medicine
To those sick with a sickness,
Like that the Buddha teaches
Mind only to sentient beings.
and so on to be just meanings that require interpretation because the
Teacher taught mind only contingent upon the differences in the outlooks
of those to be tamed.a This resembles a physician’s prescribing even poison
as medicine according to the different powers of sicknesses.76
2.2.2.2.2.2 Reasoned proof (490:4)
“When objects of cognition do not exist, the elimination of
cognition
Will easily be found,” the buddhas have taught.
When objects of cognition do not exist, the negation of cognition
will be established; therefore,
First, he refuted objects of cognition. (96)
The buddhas have taught, “If objects—objects of cognition— do not
exist, the elimination of the possessor of the object—cognition—will
easily be found” because the object and the possessor of the object are
posited contingently. Just as the Teacher began with the accumulation of
merit b through generosity c and so forth, whereby [students] enter into
the accumulation of wisdom,d first he refuted objects of cognition with
“External appearances do not exist” and so on for the very reason that,
a
b
c
d
gdul bya
bsod nams, pu˚ya
sbyin pa, d›na
ye shes, jñ›na
274
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
,.J-v<-=%-$A-=R-o?->J?-L?-+J,
,3.R-$%-.J-*A.-3-;A/-2>.-.R/-&/,
,S%-.R/-$?%?-0:%-gR$?-/?-S%-L-8A%-,
,!R%-*A.-.R/-&/-%J?-.R/->J?-0<-IA?,
97
,>J?- <2- &/- .$- $A?- 2>.- 3- ,$- 0:A- S%- %J?- GA- 2eR.- L- .J- v<- .J.- /?=%-$A-=R-o?-+J-$%-$A?-2eR.-L-S%-%J?-!R/-&J?->J?-0<-L?-+J, 3.R-#J$%-gJ/-:VJ=-*J-?R$?-GA-3,:-2o.-.%-V=-2:A-.J-*A.-.%R?-?-$?=-2<LJ.-0-*A.-3-;A/-0<, .%R?-?-*J-:$$-<%-2.J/-0-?R$?-2>.-0:A-.R/&/- /A- 92- .R/- =- :)$- (J.- S%- .R/- *A.- .- $?%?- 0:%- gR$?- 0<- L?- /?=%-.J?-.J?-:.=-IA-$.=-L-i3?-.3-0:A-.R/-.-S%-2<-L-8A%-2>.-0<L-!J, 3.R-$%-gJ/-:VJ=-*J-?R$?-3,:-2o.-.%-V=-2<-!R%-*A.-.-.%R??-!R/-LJ.-GA-.R/-&/-.J-/A-%J?-.R/-.-;%-.$-0<->J?-0<-IA?->A$-!J, 3.R.R/-.J-$8/-.-S%-2<-3A-/?-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
275
when objects of cognition are realized to be selfless, later, the negation
of cognition will be established. Also, as for the nonexistence of cognition when objects of cognition do not exist, sometimes [students] will
realize this by themselves, and sometimes they will realize it through just
a little close instruction.77
2.2.2.2.3 Ancillarily, showing the divisions into the meaning
that requires interpretation and the definitive meaning
(490:6)
In that way, one comes to know the structure of the scriptures.
Whichever sÒtras have a meaning that explains what is not suchness
Have stated a meaning that requires interpretation; realizing that,
one will be led further.
Those having the meaning of emptiness should be known to be of
definitive meaning. (97)
In that way, those having incisive knowledge analyze the expression of the
interpretable and the definitive that was just explained. Having done so,
they have come to know the structure of the scriptures, which is to say,
“those teaching what requires interpretation or the definitive as the object
of their expression.”78 Whichever sets of sÒtras do not explicitly clarify
dependent relationship—the suchness that is the freedom from the eight
extremes of production and so forth—and have the meaning of explicitly
explaining production and cessation as true in themselves and so on, are
stated as just a meaning that requires interpretation and for the sake of
entry into the profound meaning. Having been realized, those scriptures
will lead those who are to be tamed by them further, to the ultimate, and
they are to be explained....Whichever sÒtras have the meaning of explicitly teaching dependent relationship to be emptiness free from the eight
extremes of production and so forth should be known correctly to be of
definitive meaning, for the meaning of those sÒtras cannot be interpreted
otherwise.79
Outline for the Refutation of the Proponents
of Perception presented in Karmapa Mikyö Dorje’s
Chariot for the Adepts of the Takbo Kagyü,
an explanation of Chandrakırti’s Entrance to the Middle Way
The ancillary refutation of the system of the Proponents of Perception
1 Showing the earlier position
1.1 The presentation of the meaning of the scriptures
1.1.1 The reason why heirs to the victorious one realize the three existences to be consciousness only
1.1.2 Showing the cause for cognition despite the absence of external
objects
1.2 Showing their presentation of their own system
2 The refutation of that
2.1 The actual refutation
2.1.1 Refutation of cognition in the absence of external objects
2.1.1.1 Refutation of dreams as a concordant example
2.1.1.1.1 The mind is not established in dreams
2.1.1.1.2 Were it established by memory, the object would be
established also
2.1.1.1.3 Refutation of the reply that abandons those flaws
2.1.1.1.3.1 The reply that abandons those flaws
2.1.1.1.3.2 Refutation of that
2.1.1.1.3.2.1 Showing that, in dreams, all eighteen elements are false
278
The Moon of Wisdom
2.1.1.1.3.2.2 That mode is similar also in the waking state
2.1.1.1.3.2.3 Showing that, therefore, the existence or nonexistence of the
object and the cognition is similar in the example and the exemplified
2.1.1.2 Refutation of a disease of the eye as a concordant example
2.1.1.2.1 The actual refutation
2.1.1.2.1.1 Objects and consciousnesses are either similarly true or similarly false
2.1.1.2.1.2 Were that not so, it would follow that others would see
[strands of hair] also
2.1.1.2.2 Refutation of the reply that abandons those flaws
2.1.1.2.2.1 Refutation of the proof of energy
2.1.1.2.2.1.1 The answer that dispels flaws
2.1.1.2.2.1.2. Refutation of that
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.1 A [brief ] indication
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2 An [extensive] explanation
2.1.1.2.2.1.1.2.2.1 Indication that, in general, energy is not possible in the
three times
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2 Explanation that, in particular, [energy] is not possible
with respect to the past and the future
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.1 Energy is not feasible with respect to the future
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.1.1 The possessor of the qualification is not feasible in the
absence of the qualification
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.1.2 Refutation of the reply to that
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.1.3 Nonestablishment due to contingency
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.2 Energy is not feasible with respect to the past
2.1.1.2.2.1.1.2.2.2.1 Other arising from other and its ludicrous consequence
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
279
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.2 Refutation of the reply that abandons those flaws
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.2.1 The reply that abandons those flaws
2.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.2.2 Refutation of that
2.1.1.2.2.2 Refutation of the way of positing tenets in dependence upon
energy
2.1.1.2.2.2.1 The earlier position
2.1.1.2.2.2.1.1 Showing the presentation of sense powers and objects
2.1.1.2.2.2.1.2 Despite the absence of objects, consciousness arises from
energy
2.1.1.2.2.2.1.3 Showing with an example
2.1.1.2.2.2.2 Refutation of that
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1 There is damage
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.1 Were consciousness produced from energy, it would follow that eye consciousness would be produced in the blind
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.2 Objects and sense powers in dreams are equally existent
or nonexistent
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.2.1 When analyzed, energy is not feasible in dreams
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.2.1.1 The entity of energy is not feasible
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.2.1.2 The cause of energy is not feasible
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.2.2 When not analyzed, eyes exist also
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2 There is no proof
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.1 There is no reasoned proof
2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2 There is no scriptural proof
2.1.1.3 Refutation of skeletons as a concordant example
2.1.1.3.1 All three are not produced
2.1.1.3.2 If not, expression of harm
280
The Moon of Wisdom
2.1.1.4 Refutation of other examples for mistakes
2.1.1.5 Summary of the topic
2.1.2 Refutation of a nondual other powered that is substantially established
2.1.2.1 With nothing establishing it, the existence of a nondual other
powered is not feasible
2.1.2.2 Refutation of the establishment of a knower of itself
2.1.2.2.1 Brief indication
2.1.2.2.2 Refutation of establishment by memory
2.1.2.2.2.1 The nonestablished cannot establish the nonestablished
2.1.2.2.2.2 Even if a knower of itself were established, it would not be
established by memory
2.1.2.2.2.2.1 Because of being other, it is not an object for memory
2.1.2.2.2.2.2 Repudiating similarity to our [position]
2.1.2.2.3 Showing other paths that discredit [the opponent’s position]
2.1.3 Refutation of not being an object for all elaborations
2.1.4 Refutation of the existence [of the other powered] as the cause for
concealers
2.1.4.1 If the other powered exists, it withers before truths for concealers
2.1.4.1.1 A nonexistent is not suitable as a cause
2.1.4.1.2 Contradiction with the world
2.1.4.2 When one withers before the two truths, liberation is not
achieved
2.1.4.3 Explanation of the reason for that
2.2 Abandoning contradictions with regard to having made the refutation
2.2.1 Abandoning contradictions with concealers
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
281
2.2.1.1 How concealers are affirmed due to necessity
2.2.1.2 How they would not be affirmed if they did not appear to the
world
2.2.1.3 How concealers cannot be refuted for the world
2.2.1 Abandoning contradictions with scripture
2.2.2.1 Abandoning contradiction with the meaning of the SÒtra of the
Ten Grounds
2.2.2.1.1 Explaining the term only as having the meaning of refuting
another creator
2.2.2.1.1.1 Explaining the sÒtra’s intention
2.2.2.1.1.2 That is established by another sÒtra
2.2.2.1.1.2.1 Setting forth the sÒtra
2.2.2.1.1.2.2 The explanation of its meaning
2.2.2.1.2 Explaining [it] as having the meaning that mind is emphasized
over form
2.2.2.1.2.1 Brief indication
2.2.2.1.2.2 Extensive explanation
2.2.2.1.2.2.1 Were form not to exist and [appearances to be] true as mind,
this would contradict the sÒtra
2.2.2.1.2.2.2 The reason why mind is principal
2.2.2.1.2.2.3 The reason why form is not principal
2.2.2.1.2.3 Summary of the topic
2.2.2.1.3 Showing that form and mind are equally existent or nonexistent
2.2.2.1.3.1 Both are equivalent in the existence or nonexistence of the two
truths
2.2.2.1.3.1.1 In reasoned proofs, they are equivalent
282
The Moon of Wisdom
2.2.2.1.3.1.1.1 They are equivalent for the perspective of the awareness of
ordinary and superior persons
2.2.2.1.3.1.1.1.1 They are equivalent when analyzed and when not
analyzed
2.2.2.1.3.1.2. In scriptural proofs, they are equivalent
2.2.2.1.3.2 A substantial entity will not be established when the two
truths have been demolished
2.2.2.1.3.3 Summary of the topic
2.2.2.2 Abandoning contradiction with the meaning of other sÒtras
2.2.2.2.1 Showing the statement of mind only in the sÒtra to be a meaning that requires interpretation
2.2.2.2.2 Explaining the scriptures and reasonings that prove that
2.2.2.2.2.1 Scriptural proof
2.2.2.2.2.1.1. Proving this sÒtra to be one whose meaning requires interpretation
2.2.2.2.2.1.2 This shows other such sÒtras also to have meanings that
require interpretation
2.2.2.2.2.2 Reasoned proof
2.2.2.2.3 Ancillarily, showing the divisions into the meaning that
requires interpretation and the definitive meaning
Glossary
English
Tibetan
Sanskrit
action
las
karma
agent
byed pa po
kart¸
aggregate
phung po
skandha
apprehended object
gzung ba
gr›hya
apprehender
‘dzin pa
gr›ha
aspect
rnam pa
›k›ra
base
gzhi
base of all
kun gzhi
›laya
being
skyes bu
puru˝ha
bewilderment
gti mug
moha
cause
rgyu
hetu
cognition
shes pa
concealer
kun rdzob
sa˙v¸ti
conditions
rkyen
pratyaya
consciousness
rnam shes
vijñ›na
consciousness that is
the base of all
kun gzhi rnam shes
›layavijñ›na
consequence
thal ba
prasaºga
contingent/contingency
ltos, bltos
continuity
rgyun
sa˙t›na
continuum
rgyud
sa˙t›na
conventional/convention
tha snyad
vyavah›ra
conventional truth
tha snyad bden pa
284
The Moon of Wisdom
creative cause
byed rgyu
kara˚ahetu
cyclic existence
‘khor ba
sa˙s›ra
definitive meaning
nges don
nıt›rtha
designated
btags pa
prajñapti
designated existence
btags yod
prajñaptisat
elaborations
spros pa
prapañcha
element
khams
dh›tu
element of qualities
chos kyi dbyings
dharmadh›tu
empty
stong pa
shÒnya
energy
nus pa
shakya/shakti
entity
ngo bo
bh›va/svabh›va
entityness
ngo bo nyid
svabh›vat›
Enumerators
grangs can
s›˙khya
equipoise
mnyam bzhag
sam›hita
established
grub pa
siddhi
establishment by way of
[its own] entityness
ngo bo nyid kyis
grub pa
svabh›vat›
siddhi
existence
yod pa
bh›va
external object
phyi don
bahirdh›-artha,
b›hya-artha
fantasy
sgro ‘dogs
sam›ropa
foe destroyer
dgra bcom pa
arhat
forder
mu stegs pa
tırthika
form
gzugs
rÒpa
general characteristics
spyi mtshan
s›m›nyalak˝ha˚a
generosity
sbyin pa
d›na
ground
sa
bhÒmi
Highest Land
‘og min
akani˝h˛ha
ideational
kun brtags
parikalpita
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
ignorance
ma rig pa
avidy›
incisive knowledge
shes rab
prajñ›
knower of all aspects
rnam mkhyen, rnam pa
thams cad mkhyen pa
sarv›k›rajñ›na
knower of itself
rang rig
svasa˙vedana
knower of other
gzhan rig
anyasa˙vedana
knowledge
rig pa
vidy›
Manifest
mngon du gyur pa
abhimukhı
Manifest Knowledge
mngon pa’i chos
abhidharma
meaning that requires
interpretation
drang don
ney›rtha
meditation
sgom pa
bh›van›
mental consciousness
yid shes/yid
kyi rnam shes
manojñ›na
mental factor
sems byung
chaitta
merit
bsod nams
pu˚ya
mind
sems; yid; blo
chitta; manas;
buddhi
Mind Only
sems tsam
chittam›tra
mistaken
‘khrul pa
bhr›nti
mistaken cognition
‘khrul shes
bhr›ntijñ›na
nature, inherent nature
rang bzhin
svabh›va
nirv›˚a
myang ‘das
nirv›˚a
nonexistence/absence
med pa
abh›va
object
yul/don
vi˝haya/artha
object of cognition
shes bya
jñeya
other powered
gzhan dbang
paratantra
peak of existence
srid rtse
bhav›gra
person
gang zag
pudgala
pervasion
khyab pa
vy›pti
285
286
The Moon of Wisdom
phenomenon
chos
dharma
possessor of an object
yul can
vi˝hayin
predisposition
bag chags
v›san›
presentation
rnam gzhag
principal
gtso bo
Proponent of
Consciousness
rnam shes smra ba
Proponent of Materialism
rgyang ‘phen pa
›yata/ch›rv›ka
Proponent of the
Middle Way
dbu ma pa
m›dhyamika
Proponent of Perception
rnam par rig pa
vijñapti
qualification
khyad par
reason
gtan tshigs
hetu
reasoning
rigs pa
ny›ya/yukti
self
bdag
›tman
sense consciousness
dbang shes
indriyajñ›na
sense field
skye mched
›yatana
sense power
dbang po
indriya
specific characteristics
rang mtshan/rang gi
mtshan nyid
svalak˝ha˚a
substantial entity
rdzas
dravya
substantially existent
rdzas yod
dravyasat
suchness
de kho na nyid
tathat›
superficial cause of error
phral gyi ‘khrul rgyu
superior
‘phags pa
take to mind
yid la byed
tenet
grub mtha’
siddh›nta
thesis
dam bca’
pratijñ›
thing
dngos po
bh›va/vastu
pradh›na
›rya
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
287
thoroughly afflicted
phenomena
kun nas nyon mongs
kyi chos
thoroughly established
yongs su grub pa
thoroughly refined
phenomena
rnam par sbyang
ba’i chos
thought/conceptuality
rnam par rtog pa
vikalpa/
kalpan›/vitarka
three existences
srid pa gsum
tribhava
triumphant, resplendent,
and transcendent
bcom ldan ‘das
bhagavan
truth
bden pa
satya
truth for a concealer
kun rdzob bden pa
sa˙v¸tisatya
ultimate
don dam pa
param›rtha
ultimate truth
don dam bden pa
param›rthasatya
view
lta ba
d¸˝h˛i
wisdom
ye shes
jñ›na
parinishpanna
Works Cited
SÒtras
SÒtra of the Descent into Laºka
laºk›vat›rasÒtra
lang kar gshegs pa’i mdo
SÒtra of the King of Meditative Stabilizations
sam›dhir›jasÒtra
mdo ting nge ’dzin rgyal po
SÒtra of the Ten Grounds
dashabhÒmikasÒtra
mdo sde sa bcu pa
SÒtra of Transcendent Knowledge
prajñ›p›ramit›sÒtra
shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i mdo
SÒtra Unravelling the Intention
sa˙dhinirmochanasÒtra
dgongs pa nges par ‘grel pa’i mdo
Indian Treatises
Chandrakırti (zla ba grags pa, seventh century).
Entrance to the Middle Way
madhyamak›vat›ra
dbu ma la ‘jug pa
P5261, P5262, vol. 98
Edition of the Tibetan by Louis de La Vallée Poussin in Madhyamak›vat›ra
par Candrakırti, Bibliotheca Buddhica 9 (Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1970).
English translation of Chapters I-V by Jeffrey Hopkins in Compassion in
Tibetan Buddhism (Valois, NY: Gabriel/Snow Lion, 1980), pp. 102-227.
English translation of Chapter VI by Stephen Batchelor in Geshe Rabten’s
Echoes of Voidness (London: Wisdom, 1983), pp. 47-92.
English translation by C. W. Huntington, Jr. in The Emptiness of Emptiness
290
The Moon of Wisdom
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989).
English translation by the Padmakara Translation Group in Introduction to the
Middle Way (Boston: Shambhala, 2002).
Explanation of the “Entrance to the Middle Way”
madhyamak›vat›rabh›˝hya
dbu ma la ‘jug pa’i bshad pa
P5263, vol. 98
Edition of the Tibetan published in Dharamsala by the Council of Religious
and Cultural Affairs, 1968.
Edition of the Tibetan published by the Sixteenth Gyalwang Karmapa: dbu
ma la ‘jug pa’i ‘grel bshad, n.p., n.d., 258 pages.
Edition of the Tibetan by Louis de La Vallée Poussin in Madhyamak›vat›ra
par Candrakırti. Bibliotheca Buddhica 9 (Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1970).
French translation (up to VI.165) by Louis de La Vallée Poussin in Muséon 8
(1907): 249-317; Muséon 11 (1910): 271-358; and Muséon 12 (1911): 235-328.
German translation (VI.166-226) by Helmut Tauscher in CandrakırtiMadhyamak›vat›ra¯ und Madhyamak›vat›rabh›˝hyam (Wien: Wiener
Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, 1981).
N›g›rjuna (klu sgrub, first to second century, C.E.).
Treatise on the Middle Way/Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way, Called
“Knowledge”
madhyamakash›stra/prajñ›n›mamÒlamadhyamakak›rik›
dbu ma’i bstan bcos/dbu ma rtsa ba’i tshig le’ur byas pa shes rab cas bya ba
P5224, vol. 95
Editions of the Sanskrit in N›g›rjuna, MÒlamadhyamakak›rik›¯, J.W. de
Jong, ed. (Adyar: Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1977); and in Chr.
Lindtner, N›g›rjuna’s Filosofiske Vaerker. Indiske Studier 2 (Copenhagen:
Akademisk Forlag, 1982), pp. 177-215.
English translations by Frederick J. Streng, Emptiness: A Study in Religious
Meaning (Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1967); Kenneth Inada,
N›g›rjuna: A Translation of his MÒlamadhyamakak›rik› (Tokyo: The
Hokuseido Press, 1970); David Kalupahana, N›g›rjuna: The Philosophy of
the Middle Way (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1986); and
Jay L. Garfield, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: N›g›rjuna’s
MÒlamadhyamakak›rik› (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1995).
Italian translation by R. Gnoli, N›g›rjuna: Madhyamaka K›rik›, Le stanze del
cammino di mezzo. Enciclopedia di autori classici 61 (Turin: P. Boringhieri,
1961).
Danish translation by Chr. Lindtner in N›g›rjuna’s Filosofiske Vaerker. Indiske
Studier 2 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1982), pp. 67-135.
The Refutation of the Proponents of Perception
291
Vasubandhu (dbyig gnyen, fl. 360)
Treasury of Manifest Knowledge
abhidharmakoshak›rik›
chos mngon pa’i mdzod kyi tshig le’ur byas pa
P5590, vol. 115
Sanskrit: Swami Dwarikadas Shastri, AbhidharmakoŸa & Bh›˝ya of fic›rya
Vasubandhu with Sphu˛›rtha Commentary of fic›rya YaŸomitra. Bauddha
Bharati Series 5 (Banaras: Bauddha Bharati, 1970). Also: P. Pradhan, AbhidharmakoŸabh›˝yam of Vasubandhu (Patna, India: Jayaswal Research Institute, 1975).
French translation by Louis de La Vallée Poussin, L’AbhidharmakoŸa de
Vasubandhu. 6 vols. (Brussels: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises,
1971).
English translation of the French: Leo M. Pruden, AbhidharmakoŸabh›˝yam.
4 vols. (Berkeley, California: Asian Humanities Press, 1988).
Tibetan Treatises
Mikyö Dorje, Karmapa VIII (karma pa mi bskyod rdo rje, 1507-1554)
Explanation of “The Entrance to the Middle Way,” The Sacred Scripture of the
Glorious Knower of the Three Times, The Chariot for the Adepts of the Takbo
Kagyü
dbu ma la ‘jug pa’i rnam bshad dpal ldan dus gsum mkhyen pa’i zhal lung
dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta
Edition published by the Sixteenth Gyalwang Karmapa, Rangjung Rigpe
Dorje, n.p., n.d., 805 pages.
Edition published by Nitartha international: Seattle, 1996, 733 pages.
Works in English
Lopez, Donald S., Jr. The Heart SÒtra Explained: Indian and Tibetan Commentaries. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988.
$?3-0-=-.$$-0:A-<A$?-0-2>., 3)$-2#-2, ?/-:LA/-IA-=3-$8/;%-2!/-0:R,
$*A?-0-/A,
$*A?-=?-*J-2:%-<A$?-0:A-%R-2R-3-;A/-$%-$A-KA<,,
2>.-9A/-*J?-0-.J-.$-,R$-+-:22-0-;A/-KA<-<R,, 98 !#
2.$-$8/-$*A?-!-=?-*J-2:%-<A$?-0:A-%R-2R-3-;A/-+J, $%-$A-KA<-KR$?$*A?-!-=-2>.-9A/-*J?-0-.J-.$-,R$-+-:22-0-;A/-0:A-KA<-+J, .J-/A-.J=?-:L%-/-;R/-+/-:$:-;%-;R.-3-;A/, ,8J?-?R$?-.%-, $8/-=-2gJ//?-$=-+J-$8/-8A$-:L%-2<-:I<-/-/A, :R-/-3J-tJ-=?-G%-3/-0-3,$-0R:L%-:I<-8A%-, ,8J?-?R$?-*J?-0-2>.-9A/-+R,,
Part III:
The Refutation of Arising from
the Four Extremes—Section B
[444.3] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3. The refutation of arising from both
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.1. An explanation of the reasoning that is refuted1
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.2. A concluding summary
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3. Another way of revealing the faults in the
argument
[444.16] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.2. A concluding summary
Arising from both self and other is also illogical
Because the faults previously explained apply to it as well. (98ab)
It is also illogical for things to arise from both themselves and something
different from themselves, because all the faults in the idea of arising from
self and in the idea of arising from other, as they have been previously
explained, apply to the idea that things arise from both self and other.
These faults were described in the line “If it arose from itself, arising would
be meaningless,”2 and those that follow; and in the lines “If a thing arose
from something different from itself/Then pitch darkness would arise
from a fire’s flames,”3 and those that follow. [445]
294
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
:.A-/A-:)A$-gJ/-=?-3A/-.J-*A.-.-;%-:.R.-3A/-+J,,
$%-KA<-<J-<J-=?-/A-*J-2-:P2-0-;R.-3-;A/,, 98 $%
$*A?-!-=?-*J-2-:.A-/A-:)A$-gJ/-!/-mR2-=?-G%-*J-2<-:.R.-0-3A/-&A%-,
.J-#R-/-*A.-.:%-*J-2<-:.R.-0-3A/-+J, 2.J/-0-$*A?-!<-2.$-$8/-=?*J-2-2!$-0:A-KA<, $*A?-!-=?-*J-2-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, $%-KA<-2.$-$8/<J-<J-=?-/A-*J-2-:P2-0-;R.-0-3-;A/-0:A-KA<, .0J<-/-+A=-$&A$-$A?-:V3<-:LA/-0-/-3%-0R?-G%-:LA/-=, LJ-3-<J-<J-=-/?-0-3J.-0?-3%-0R?G%-3A-/?-0-28A/-/R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
295
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3. Another way of revealing the faults
in the argument
We do not assert arising from both self and other, either in the world or
in the precise nature of reality,
Because there is no arising from either self or other individually. (98cd)
We do not assert that arising from both self and other occurs either in the
relative truth of the world or in the precise nature of reality, because we
have refuted arising from self and arising from other in both of these two
truths. Arising from self and other together does not occur, because there
is no arising from either self or other individually. For example, since one
sesame seed can produce sesame oil, then many seeds can produce a lot of
oil, but since one grain of sand cannot produce any sesame oil, many grains
of sand together cannot produce any oil either.
296
The Moon of Wisdom
28A-0-=, %R-2R-*A.-5-2-.$$-0-.%-, ?J3?-0-:L%-2-=?-I<-0-.$$-0$*A?, .%-0R-=, 2.J/-0-$*A?-&<-.-.$$ ,.3A$?-?-3A-<%-2:A-:,.0?-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
$=-+J-o-3J.-#R-/<-*J-2<-v->A$-:I<-/-/A,,
.J-5K-3,:-.$-g$-+-,3?-&.-=?-G%-*J-:I<-8A%-,,
:V?-:L%-(J.-.-:)A$-gJ/-:.A-;A-?-2R/-=-?R$?-/A,,
2o-U$-.$-$A-|R-/?-#.-0<-LJ.-0<-;%-3A-:I<,, 99
$=-+J-KA-/%-$A-.%R?-0R-,3?-&.-o-3J.-#R-/<-*J-2<-v-8A$-:I<-/-/A, .J5K-:V?-2-3,:-.$-.?-g$-+-o-;A/-3A/-,3?-&.-=?-G%-*J-2<-:I<-+J,
)A-v<-2-/-?:A->A%-.J->A%-,R$-$A-o-3A/-0-=?-*J-2-v<-A-W-?R$?-G%-o3A/-.J-=?-*J-2<-:I<-2:A-KA<-+J, o-3-;A/-0<-:S-2:A-KA<, .J-28A/-.-AW-?R$?-(A/-0-.?-GA-H.-0<-=-2vR?-0-.J-;%-.?-g$-+-;R.-0<-:I<-+J,
.?-=-3A-2vR?-0:A-KA<, .J-28A/-.-k-L-k-L:A-3.R%?-GA-o-3A/-0-28A/-L<R$-=-;%-k-L:A-3.R%?-;R.-0<-:I<-<R, ,.J?-/-:PR-!/-;=-.?-,3?&.-.-*J-/-.J-;%-;R.-0-3-;A/-/R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
297
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4. The refutation of causeless arising
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.1. The refutation of those who assert that things
just arise naturally
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.2. The refutation of the theory that mind arises
from the elements
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.1. The refutation of those who assert that
things just arise naturally
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.1.1. Refuting causeless arising in both of the two
truths
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.1.2. Causeless arising is untenable because its
results would be imperceptible
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.1.1. Refuting causeless arising
in both of the two truths
If things arose without any cause at all,
Then everything would always exist and would arise from everything else.
Furthermore, no one would perform all of the hundreds of tasks, like
planting seeds and so forth,
That people ordinarily do in order to get results to arise. (99)
[446] If inner and outer things arose without cause, then all results would
always arise from all things that either were or were not their causes. For
example, just as banasa fruit would arise from the banasa tree, which would
not be the banasa fruit’s cause, so banasa fruit would also arise from noncauses like mangoes and so forth, because they would equally be noncauses of the banasa fruit as its own tree. Furthermore, mangoes and all
other fruits that ripen only at particular times would always ripen, because
they would not need to depend on time in order to do so. Similarly, peacocks would not be the causes of the eyes on peacock feathers, and ravens
would have such eyes on their feathers as well. Finally, all wandering beings
would take birth at all times, in all lands, but that is not the case.
298
The Moon of Wisdom
;R.-.R-8J?-8J/-/-<A$?-0-.%-:$=-2<-3-9.-3,R%-2-.%-:$=-2-;A/-+J,
o-3J.-0<-*J-/-:)A$-gJ/-0-:.A-;A?-:V-.%->A%-2=-?R$?-GA-:V?-2-:L%2:A-(J.-.-?-2R/-=-?R$?-/A-%=-2-2o-U$-.$-$A-|R-/?-#.-&A%-:2.-0<LJ.-0<-;%-3A-:I<-2:A-KA<,
$*A?-0-/A,
$=-+J-:PR-2-o-;A?-!R%-0<-I<-/-/3-3#:-;A,,
Aa-=-;A-SA-3.R$-)A-28A/-$9%-.-3J.-*A.-/,,
>A/-+-(J?-2N:A-:)A$-gJ/-:6B/-0:%-;A/-0-.J-;A-KA<,,
<%-$A-]R-28A/-:)A$-gJ/-o-=?-;A/-0<->J?-0<-IA?,, 100
;%-:)A$-gJ/-(R?-&/, /3-3#:A-Aa-=-;A-SA-3.R$-)A-28A/-<%-$A-;=-&/IA->J?-0?-29%-.-3J.-*A.-/-!J-3J.-0<-,=, $=-+J-:PR-2-o-;A?-!R%-0<I<-/-!J-.J-*A.-GA-KA<, :)A$-gJ/-:.A-(R?-&/, o-=?-:L%-2-;A/-0<->J?0<-IA?->A$-!J, >A/-+-(J?-2N-2:A-:)A$-gJ/-:)A$-gJ/-0-?R-?R:C-;=-&/IA?-:6B/-0:%-;A/-0-.J:A-KA<, cR=-2-<%-$A-]R-;=-=?-*J-2-28A/-/R,
,.0J-3-P2-2R-8J-/, P2-!J, HR.-G%-}R/-0R:C-i3-0-&/-IA-]R-*J-2-/-}R/-0R=?-*J:A, .J-3J.-0<-3A-*J-2<-3,R%-2:A-KA<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
299
If someone still clings to this theory as being valid, not only is that contrary to reason, it is also contrary to our direct experience, because if things
arose without cause, worldly beings would not exhaust themselves in the
efforts of performing all the hundreds of tasks they do, like planting seeds
and everything else, in order to get results like cotton and other crops to
arise.
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.1.2. Causeless arising is untenable
because its results would be imperceptible
If wandering beings had no causes
They would be like the scents and colors of lotus flowers in the sky—
imperceptible.
However, we do perceive the universe in all its great variety, and so,
Know that the universe, like your own mind, arises from causes. (100)
Furthermore, given this universe, it would be just as imperceptible as the
scents and colors of blue lotus flowers growing in the sky are for the consciousnesses that are their perceiving subjects, because if wandering beings
had no causes, they would be like flowers in the sky—imperceptible.
Given this universe, you the opponents should know that it does arise
from causes, because it is perceptible in all its great variety by the individual sentient beings who are its perceiving subjects, just as your minds arise
from the objects that are their causes. If you say that this example does not
follow, the answer is that it does follow, because when a mind perceiving
blue arises for one of you, it does so from a blue object, and if there is no
blue, we see that such a mind does not arise. [447]
300
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, :.A-=:%-kR%?-/-1-<R=-gR$?-0<-:$=, 1-<R=-3J.-gR$-=R$0<-v-2<-2!/-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
:L%-2-.J-.$-2.$-*A.-$%-8A$-$A?-/A-HR.-GA-]R:A,,
;=-.-:I<-2-.J-;A-2.$-*A.-&/-/A-3-;A/-/,,
$%-=-;A.-GA-3/-0-:,$-0R-:.A-*A.-.-;R.-0,,
.J?-/A-)A-v<-:)A$-gJ/-1-<R=-;%-.$-gR$?-0<-:I<,, 101
.0J<-/-<2-<A2-GA?-2a.-0:A-3A$-&/-=-/3-3#<-;R.-0-3-;A/-0:A-^$*A?-$%-2-/, .J-=?-$8/-0-0->.-.%-4%-3-=-?R$?-0-$%-2-.$-G%;R.-0-3-;A/-0-28A/-.-?-=-?R$?-0:A-:L%-2-.J-.$-KA-.%-/%-$A-.%R?-0R!/-IA-o<-I<-0:A-2.$-*A.-$%-8A$-$A?-/A-o%-:1J/-HR.-GA-]R:A-;=-.:I<-2-?-?R$?-.J-.$->J?-0-.J:A-o:A-2.$-*A.-&/-/A-3-;A/-/-!J, ;A/-/KA-<R=-IA-?-hR-?R$?-=-i3->J?-.%-, .J-.%-z/-&A$-0:A-.2$?-.L%-d2?R$?-:L%-<A$?-0:A-KA<, o%-:1J/-$%-=-:L%-2?->J?-0:A-o-LJ.-.R-8J?;A.-GA-3/-0-3,$-0R:C-.2%-$A?-.J-v-2:A-:)A$-gJ/-3%R/-?3-:.A-*A.-.;R.-0<-5-2-.J?-/A-)A-v<-:)A$-gJ/-1-<R=->A/-+-U-2<-I<-0-z:A-3A$-$A,R.-;=-.-:I<-2-;%-.$-0<-gR$?-0<-:I<-+J-3A-:I<-2<-,=, =R$0<-v-2-3-2+%-2<-;%-.$-0<-v-2-:L%-3A-YA.-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
301
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.2. The refutation of the theory that mind
arises from the elements
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.2.1. If one is ignorant about this world, it is
impossible for one to understand what lies beyond this world
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.2.2. Why the denial of existence beyond this
world4 is a mistaken view
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.2.1. If one is ignorant about this world,
it is impossible for one to understand what lies beyond
this world
The way you believe the elements to be
Is not the way they really are.
And if you have that much ignorance about this world,
How could you ever understand what lies beyond this world? (101)
[448.18] If a person’s eyesight is afflicted by cataracts, and nonexistent
things like a second moon appear to him in the sky, then the other appearances that he sees—of falling hairs, bees, and so forth—do not exist either.
In the same way, the elements such as earth and so forth that you Charvakas5 believe to be the causes of all inner and outer entities are not in fact
the causes of mind, because if they were, then outer objects like earth,
stones, and so forth would have consciousness, would breathe in and out,
and so forth. [449] Since you Charvakas are under the power of so much
ignorance that you claim that the elements are the causes of consciousness,
and you believe that this is the way things are in this world that we can
actually directly perceive, how could you ever understand the very subtle
subject of what lies beyond this world, which only those with divine vision
can see? You do not understand it, because for as long as a person has not
abandoned a mistaken view about something, it is impossible for him to
give rise to a correct view about it.
302
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, $8/-=-P$?-GA-eJ?-.0$-2eR., .0J-P2-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
:)A$-gJ/-1-<R=-:$R$-0<-LJ.-0:A-.?-?-2.$-*A.-/A,,
>J?-L:A-<%-28A/-KA/-&A-=R$-+-v-2<-gR$?-L-!J,,
.J-;A-v-2:A-i3-0:A-gJ/-35%?-=?-.%-w/-*A.-KA<,,
$%-5K-:L%-2:A-2.$-*A.-;R.-*A.-#?-=J/-.J-5K-28A/,, 102
o%-:1J/-IA-]R?-:L%-2-2.J/-0<-8J/-0-.%-, :)A$-gJ/-1-<R=-3J.-0<-8J/0-$*A?-;R.-0-.J-=-:.A-v<-2eR.-0<-L-!J, :)A$-gJ/-1-<R=-3J.-.J-8J?:$R$-0<-LJ.-0:A-.?-?-o%-:1J/-2.$-*A.-/A-(R?-&/, >J?-L:A-<%-28A/:)A$-gJ/-;%-.$-!/-mR2-=?-KA/-&A-=R$-+-v-2<-gR$?-L-!J, 8J?-KA/=R$-$A-v-2-&/-.-,=, KA/-=R$-.J:A-v-2:A-i3-0<-LJ.-0:A-o:A-gJ/-.-{=2-3*3-0<-:S-2-!J-35%?-0:A-=?-.%-w/-0-*A.-GA-KA<, $%-5K-?-?R$?:L%-2:A-2.$-*A.-2.J/-3J.-=-2.J/-;R.-*A.-.-#?-=J/-0-.J:A-5K-=R$-v:Ai3-0:A-gJ/-35%?-0:A-=?-.%-w/-0-28A/-/R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
303
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.2.2. Why the denial of existence beyond
this world is a mistaken view
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.2.2.1. An expression of the inferential reasoning
renowned to others
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.2.2.2. How the example is established as valid
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.2.2.1. An expression of the inferential
reasoning renowned to others
When they refute the existence of lives beyond this one,
Their view of objects of knowledge is mistaken,
Because the physical body is equivalent to the basis of their view,
Just as when they assert that the elements exist. (102)
The Charvakas have two types of clinging: to the elements as being truly
existent, and to future lifetimes as being nonexistent. Concerning this,
things should be expressed in the following way: When the Charvakas
refute the existence of lives beyond this one, their view of objects of knowledge deviates from what is correct relative truth in the world; in other
words, they have a mistaken view, because the physical body is equivalent
to being the basis of their mistaken view. It is just as when they assert the
true existence of the elements of earth and so forth, which in actuality do
not exist. At that time, the physical body is also equivalent to being the
basis of their mistaken view.6
304
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
:L%-2-.J-.$-)A-v<-;R.-3A/-.J-v<-2>.-9A/-+J,,
$%-$A-KA<-/-$R%-.-<%-$8/-=?-.%-$*A?-!-=?,,
*J-.%-o-3J.-,/-3R%-.-/A-2!$-9A/-.J-;A-KA<,,
3-2>.-:L%-2-:.A-.$-v-8A$-;R.-0-3-;A/-/R,, 103
?-?R$?-GA-:L%-2-=-2.J/-v-3-wR$-0:3-,J-5S3-3-*J?-0<-:L%-2-2.J/v:A-i3-0:A-gJ/-35%?-0:A-=?-.%-w/-0:A-.0J-3-P2-0R-8J-/, :L%-2-=2.J/-0-.%-*J-2-3J.-0:A-3,/-.0J-212-0<-L-3A-.$R?-+J, #R-2R-&$-$A?:L%-2-.J-.$-)A-v<-2.J/-0:A-<%-28A/-.-;R.-0-3A/-0<-.J-v<-2>.-9A/-+J,
$%-$A-KA<-/-$R%-.-.%R?-0R-,3?-&.-<%-$8/-=?-.%-$*A?-!-=?-*J-2-.%o-3J.-0<-*J-2-,/-3R%-.-/A-2!$-9A/-0-.J:A-KA<-+J, <%-28A/-3J.-0<-32>.-0:A-:L%-2-:.A-.$-=-2.$-$A-*J-2-?R$?-2.J/-0<-,A<-2!$-0?2.J/-0<-v-2-&%-9.-&A$-$A-$/?-G%-;R.-0-3-;A/-0:A-KA<-.0J-P2-2R,,
$?3-0-/A,
$%-$A-KA<-/-2.$-.%-$8/-.%-$*A?-!-=?-*J-.%-,,
o-=-3-vR?-;R.-0-3A/-0?-.%R?-i3?-<%-28A/-V=,, 104 !#
.J?-/-.%R?-0R<-P2-0:A-*J-2-YA.-/-3,:-28A-=?-*J-2<-gR$-0-=?-$8/3A-YA.-0:A-KA<-.2%-K$-?R$?-=?-*J-2<-:.R.-/:%-3,:-28A-$%-<%=?-*J-2-3-$+R$?-3,:-s-0-=?-*J-2-3J.-.R-8J?-.%R?-0R-i3?-<%-28A/V=-+J, $%-$A-KA<-/-2.$-.%-$8/-.%-$*A?-!-=?-*J-2-.%-, o-=-32vR?-0<-*J-2-;R.-0-3A/-0?-.J:A-KA<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
305
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.4.2.2.2. How the example is established
as valid
How it is that the elements do not exist has already been explained:
The refutations of arising from self, other, both, and without cause
Refuted the elements at the same time they refuted everything else;
Elements exempt from those refutations do not exist. (103)
[450] Someone who has not abandoned or even given rise to doubts about
the view that the elements of earth and so forth truly exist might say, “The
above example, that the body is equivalent to being the basis of the mistaken view that the elements truly exist, is not established as valid.” However, we do not need to prove that this concordant example of the elements
being unborn and lacking in true existence is valid, because we have already
explained how it is that the elements lack inherent existence. We explained
this above with the universal refutations of the arising of any and all things,
whether from self, other, both, or without cause. Since the validity of arising from self and so forth was universally refuted in this way, no elements
that are exempt from these refutations exist. The elements therefore have
no inherent nature, and the view of them as being truly existent has not
the slightest ground on which to stand. In this way, the example is established as valid.
[452.2] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.3. The conclusion to draw from the
refutation of arising: phenomena have no inherent nature
Since things do not arise from self, other, both, nor without cause,
They have no inherent nature at all. (104ab)
Thus, if arising that actually existed were possible, it would have to be conceived of as arising from one of the four extremes—nothing else would be
possible. Thus, one may assert arising from Ishvara or anything else, but
it must be arising from one of the four extremes—no fifth extreme exists.
Therefore, things have no inherent nature at all, because they do not
arise from self, other, both, nor without cause.
306
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, 3,R%-2-.%-:$=-2-%%-2-.%-, <%-28A/-3J.-/-,-~.-.-;%;R.-0<-:$=-2:A-lR.-0-%%-2-$*A?, .%-0R-=, $+A-3$-$A-.2%-$A?-3A3#?-0?-3,R%-2:A-5=-.%-, 3#?-0-=-3A-$%-2:A-5=-$*A?, .%-0R-=,
.%R?-0R-.%-, .%R?-3J.-3,R%-2:A-:$=-%%-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
$%-$A?-3A/-5S$?-.%-35%?-$+A-3$-!$-0R-:)A$-gJ/-=,,
;R.-0-.J?-/-;=-i3?-=R$-0-.$-+-$%-2<-:I<,, 104 $%
:R-/-}R/-0R-?R$?-GA-.%R?-0R-3-*J?->A%-;=-.-3A-:I<-2?-3-29%-/-;%;%-.-3./-/-$%-2-.J-&A-8J-/, ;=-i3?-3,R%-2-/A-<%-28A/-)A-v-2-3-;A/0<-3%R/-8J/-&/-i3?-=-KA/-&A-=R$-0-.$-+-$%-2<-:I<-2-;A/-+J, $%$A?-/3-3#:A-<%-28A/-1A2-LJ.-GA-(<-3A/-IA-5S$?-.%-35%?-0:A-$+A3$-$A-3/-0-3,$-0R?-/3-3#:A-}R/-0R:C-<%-28A/-!R%-0-*A.-3,R%-2IR$?-/?-$/?-0-:)A$-gJ/-0-=-;R.-0-.J?-/:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
307
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2. The rebuttal of arguments opposing
the refutation of arising
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1. Rebutting the argument that the refutation is
contradictory to direct perception
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2. Rebutting the argument that it would be
contradictory for things to have no inherent nature and yet
exist conventionally
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1. Rebutting the argument that the refutation
is contradictory to direct perception
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1. The mode of perception of those without wisdom,
who are under the power of their bewilderment
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.2. The way in which the things seen by such
individuals do not appear to the wise ones
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1. The mode of perception of those without
wisdom, who are under the power of their bewilderment
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1. Why there is no contradiction in perceiving
things
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2. Why there is no contradiction in perceiving
non-things
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1. Why there is no contradiction
in perceiving things
Like a mass of dark clouds, thick bewilderment enshrouds the minds
of worldly beings,
And therefore things appear in a mistaken way. (104cd)
Someone might ask, “Well, if things like the color blue and so forth do not
arise and become objects of perception, and therefore they are not perceived, then why do they repeatedly appear right here in front of me?”
This seeing of things is not in accord with their true nature. To those
who cling to things as being truly existent, things appear in a mistaken way,
for just as a mass of dark rain clouds obscures the true nature of the sky, so
the thick darkness of worldly beings’ bewilderment blocks their vision of
emptiness, the true nature of the blue in the sky, and they abide in that
state of darkness.
308
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, .0J-.%-.R/-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
)A-v<-<2-<A2-3,-;A?-:$:-8A$-0->.-^-$*A?-.%-,,
k-L:A-3.R%?-.%-4%-3-=-?R$?-=R$-0<-:6B/-LJ.-0,, 105 !#
$+A-3$-$A-1A2-.2%-$A?-.J-*A.-3A-3,R%-2<-:I<-2-=-<$-3R., KA/-&A=R$-+-)A-v<-3,R%-8J-/, 3-<A$-0:A-.2%-$A?-.J-3A/-=-.J-v<-$%-%R-8J?.0J:A-|R-/?-2!/-0-/A, )A-v<-<2-<A2-3,-;A?-<2-<A2-&/-:$:-8A$-=;R.-0-3A/-0:A-0->.-.%-^-$*A?-.%-k-L:A-3.R%?-.%-4%-3-=-?R$?-0i3?-3-*J?-0:A-<%-28A/-;A/-.-9A/-G%-.%R?-0R-*A.-.-=R$-0<-:6B/-0<LJ.-0-;A/-/R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
.J-28A/-.-/A-$+A-3$-*R/-IA-.2%-$A?-3A-3#?-0?,,
:.?-L?-v-8A$-$-5S$?-]R-PR?-GA?-/A-gR$?-0<-:I<,, 105 $%
.0J-.J-28A/-.-/A-:PR-2-i3?-G%-$+A-3$-$A-*R/-IA-.2%-$A?-<%-28A/-33,R%-!J, 3A-3#?-0?-2?R.-/3?-.%-, 2?R.-/3?-3A/-0-.%-, 3A-$;R2:A-=?-2?$?-/?-:#R<-2:A-$R.-2&.-GA-:.?-L?-:.A-v-8A$-$-5S$?-0;R.-0<-]R-PR?-GA?-/A-gR$?-0<-:I<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
309
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2. Why there is no contradiction in
perceiving non-things
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.1. The example
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.2. The exemplified [453]
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.1. The example
Just as some people who suffer from an eye disease
Mistakenly perceive falling hairs, double moons, peacock feather eyes,
or bees, (105ab)
Someone may ask, “Granted, the obscuring power of bewilderment prevents worldly beings from seeing the precise nature of reality, but why do
they see mistaken objects that do not really exist?”
The power of ignorance causes what is not those mistaken objects to
appear to be them, and this is taught by means of the following example:
Some people who suffer from an eye disease, due to the power of their illness, mistakenly perceive nonexistent falling hairs, double moons, peacock feather eyes, bees and so forth as if they were actually there, even
though in reality none of these things has arisen.
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.2. The exemplified
So the unwise, suffering from bewilderment,
Conceive of the variety of composite things. (105cd)
In a manner similar to that described in the above example, the power of
the bewilderment that afflicts wandering beings prevents them from seeing the true nature of reality, and as a result of their having accumulated
meritorious, nonmeritorious, and neutral karma, these unwise individuals conceive of the variety of composite things that constitute samsara’s vessel and its contents as existent.
310
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
$=-+J-$+A-3$-2gJ/-/?-=?-:L%-$+A-3$-3J.-0<-.J,,
3A-:L%-8J?-L<-3A-3#?-#R-/?-gR$?-0<-$R<-3-($,
]R-29%-*A-3?-3/-0-!$-0R-i3-0<-2?=-2-;A,,
3#?-0-.$-/A-!R%-*A.-#R%-.-(.-&A%-PR=-2<-:I<,, 106
$=-+J-*J-:$$-$A-5=-:.A?-/A-$+A-3$-<%-28A/-3J.-0-=-2gJ/-/?-=?<%-28A/-3J.-0-:L%-=, $+A-3$-$A-m?-3J.-0<-:.-LJ.-GA-m?-.J-3A-:L%8J?-L<-LA?-0-3A-3#?-0-#R-/?-gR$?-0<-$R<-3-($-!J, $*A?-!-$.R./?-*J-3J.-.-3-gR$?-0<-3-<A$-0:A-.2%-$A?-=?-:L%-2-.%-.J-3J.-/-3A:L%-2<-8J/-0:A-KA<, .J-#R-/-*A.-3,R%-2:A-]R-29%-;J->J?-GA-*A-3?-$+A3$-$A-3/-0-!$-0R-i3-0<-2?=-2:A-3#?-0-.$-/A-:#R<-2-=?-PR=-2<:I<-+J, 3-<A$-0:A-nJ/-=?-:.-LJ.-.R-8J?-:L%-2-.$-gJ/-:L%-+-3-v<<%-28A/-3J.-0:A-!R%-*A.-#R%-.-(.-0?-3-<A$-0-%R%-8A%-, :.-LJ.-G%-*J2<-=J/-0<-3A-:I<-2:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
311
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.2. The way in which the things seen by
unwise individuals do not appear to the wise ones
“Karma arises in dependence upon bewilderment, and if there were no
bewilderment, there would be no karma”—
This was undoubtedly spoken only for the unwise to understand;
With excellent minds like suns that perfectly dispel this thick darkness,
The wise ones realize emptiness and are liberated. (106)
[454] Since it is the case that this mode of arising and cessation is that in
dependence upon bewilderment that has no inherent nature, karma without inherent nature arises, then when it was taught that “Without the substance of bewilderment, the substance of karmic action will not come into
existence,” this was undoubtedly spoken only for the unwise to understand, because not realizing that bewilderment and karma never arise, they
cling to both the performance of karmic actions as a result of ignorance
and the nonperformance of karmic actions in the absence of ignorance as
being truly existent.
The wise ones’ excellent minds that see the precise nature of reality are
like suns of wisdom that perfectly dispel bewilderment’s thick darkness.
They are liberated from samsara because they realize that what is described
as the arising of karmic actions from the condition of ignorance is dependent arising, illusory, emptiness that is the absence of inherent nature, and
in this way they abandon ignorance and do not perform karmic actions.
312
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-lR.-=/-$*A?-+J,
.%-0R-/A,
$=-+J-.%R?-i3?-.J-*A.-.-3J.-/,,
,-~.-.-;%-3R-$>3-2-)A-28A/,,
.J-.$-3J.-0-*A.-:I<-.J-;A-KA<,,
.J-.$-<%-28A/-IA?-/A-;R.-0-*A.,, 107
$9$?-?R$?-.J-.$-.R/-.3-0<-<%-28A/-IA?-/A-;R.-0-*A.-.J, $=-+J$9$?-?R$?-.%R?-0R-i3?-.J-#R-/-*A.-.-!J-.R/-.3-0<-3J.-/-,-~.-.-;%3R-$>3-IA-2-)A-v-2-28A/-.-!/-mR2-.J-.$-!/-mR2-+-;%-3J.-0-*A.-.:I<-2<-<A$?-/, .J-;%-3-;A/-0<-!/-mR2-+-;R.-0-.J:A-KA<-8J?-9J<-<R,,
$*A?-0-=-.0J-3-%J?-0<-2!/, .2-3-0-=-:.A:A-[/-!-3A-:)$ ,<%-$A#J-0?-2c=-2<-3A-<A$?-0-$?3, .%-0R-=, <2-<A2-&/-IA?-3-%J?-0-.%, HR.-<%-*A.-=-3-%J?-0-$*A?,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
313
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2. Rebutting the argument that it would
be contradictory for things to have no inherent nature
and yet exist conventionally
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.1. The opponents’ argument
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2. The answer to this argument
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.1. The opponents’ argument
“If things did not genuinely exist,
Then conventionally as well they would be completely nonexistent,
Like the child of a childless woman.
Therefore, things do inherently exist,” you say. (107)
You say, “In genuine reality forms and so forth inherently exist, because if
things such as forms did not genuinely exist in the precise nature of reality, then it would logically follow that they would be completely nonexistent in conventional, relative reality as well, like the child of a childless
woman. It is not like that, however—these things do exist relatively, and
therefore, they also exist genuinely.”
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2. The answer to this argument
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1. Why the opponents’ example is not definite
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.2. This fault does not apply to the Middle Way
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.3. It is illogical for other Buddhist schools to attack
the Middle Way
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1. Why the opponents’ example is
not definite
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1.1. Why it is not definite for those with
diseased eyes
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1.2. Why it is not even definite for you
314
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
$%-.$-<2-<A2-&/-?R$?-;=-:I<-2,,
0->.-=-?R$?-.J-.$-3-*J?-0?,,
<J-8A$-.J-.$-*A.-=-2l.-L-!J,,
KA-/?-3-<A$-<2-<A2-eJ?-:VJ=-=:R,, 108
.J:A-=/-., $%-.$-<2-<A2-&/-=-?R$?-0:A-]R:A-;=-.-I<-0, 0->.-=?R$?-0-.J-.$-.%-3R-$>3-IA-2-3-*J?-0<-35%?-0-=?, HR.-&$-$A?;R.-0-3A/-0:A-0->.-3,R%-=, 3R-$>3-IA-2-3,R%-2-3-;A/-0-&A-8J?-<J-8A$<2-<A2-&/-.J-.$-*A.-=-2l.-0<-L-2<-:R?-+J, KA-/?-3-*J?-0:A-$9$?3,R%-=-3R-$>3-IA-2-3,R%-2-3A/-0-&A-8J?-3-<A$-0:A-<2-<A2-GA?-]R-3A$eJ?-?-:VJ=-8A%-21A2?-0-i3?-=-2c=-2g$-+-L-.$R?-?R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
315
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1.1. Why the example is not definite
for those with diseased eyes [455]
However, those with ailments such as diseased eyes
See falling hairs and so forth, even though these things have not
really arisen.
So go debate with them for now,
And later you can debate with those stricken by the eye disease
of ignorance. (108)
The answer to the opponents’ argument is as follows: For people with ailments such as diseased eyes and so forth, falling hairs and other similar
appearances become objects of cognition, even though these objects are
just as unborn as the children of a childless woman. So for now, you should
go debate with them by asking them, “How can you see nonexistent falling
hairs and not see the children of a childless woman?” Then later, you
should go and try to refute the experiences of those whose eyes of wisdom
are afflicted and obscured by the eye disease of ignorance by asking them,
“How can you see unborn forms and not see the children of a childless
woman?”
316
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, <A$?-0-.%-, =%-$A?-3-%J?-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
$=-+J-kA-=3-SA-9:A-PR%-HJ<-2&?,,
(A$-o:A-(-.%-3A$-:U=-$9$?-2f/-?R$?,,
*J-3J.-3,R%-/-;R.-*A.-3A/-35%?-G%-,,
HR.-=-)A-v<-.J<-:I<-.J-3A-<A$?,, 109
<2-<A2-&/-=-2c=-8A%-2g$-0-1<-:.$-&A$ ,<J-8A$-:.A-HR.-*A.-=-(J<2c=-8A%-2g$-0<-L-2-;A/-+J, $=-+J-HR.-GA?-G%-kA-=3-.%-SA-9:A-PR%HJ<-<-2-.%-2&?-0-.%-, (A$-o:A-(-.%-3A$-:U=-.%-$9$?-2f/-.%?R$?-0?-V$-(-.%-3=-0-i3?-<%-28A/-IA?-*J-2-3J.-28A/-3,R%-/, 3R$>3-IA-2-.%-.R/-=-;R.-0-*A.-3A/-0<-35%?-G%-HR.-=-)A-v<-kA-=3?R$?-3,R%-=, 3R-$>3-IA-2-3A-3,R%-2-.J<-:I<-2-&A-;A/-&J?-<%-=2c=-2g$-L?-+J-KA?-/?-%J.-=:%-2c=-2g$-L?-0<-:I<-<R, ,.J?-/$9$?-?R$?-<%-28A/-3J.-/-3R-$>3-IA-2-.%-;R.-3J.-35%?-?R-8J?-5-2.J-3A-<A$?-?R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
317
[455.last] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1.2. Why the example is not even
definite for you
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1.2.1. The logical reasoning that proves the example
to be indefinite
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1.2.2. The Buddha’s statements that prove the
example to be indefinite [456]
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1.2.1. The logical reasoning that proves
the example to be indefinite
How is it that you can see
Dream appearances, cities of gandharvas, water in mirages, optical
illusions, and reflections?
Those things are unborn and just as nonexistent as the child of
a childless woman!
How can you see them and not that child? Your argument is illogical. (109)
Forget about debating with people who have eye disease for now—first,
you have a big debate that you need to take up with yourself ! For you perceive dream appearances, cities of gandharvas (walls and all), water in
mirages, optical illusions, reflections, echoes, emanations, and so on—all
of which do not inherently arise and are just as nonexistent as the child of
a childless woman. How can you perceive these dream appearances and so
forth and yet not perceive the child of a childless woman? First you should
debate this point with yourself, and then you can come and debate us.
Thus, the statement, “If forms and other things have no inherent
nature, they would be just as existent or nonexistent as a child of a childless woman” is illogical.
318
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
.J-*A.-.-:.A-)A-v<-*J-3J.-G%-,,
3R-$>3-2-v<-$%-KA<-:)A$-gJ/-IA,,
3,R%-2:A-;=-.-3A-:I<-3-;A/-0,,
.J-;A-KA<-/-5-:.A-3-%J?-0:R,, 110
HR.-GA?, $=-+J-.%R?-i3?-.J-*A.-.-3J.-/, ,,-~.-.-;%-3R-$>3-2-)A28A/, ,8J?-5-2-:.A-H2-0-3-%J?-0<-:I<-+J, $9$?-?R$?-:.A-.J-#R-/*A.-.-kA-=3-=-?R$?-0-:.A-)A-v-2<-*J-2-3J.-G%-3R-$>3-IA-2-v<-$%KA<-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-3,R%-2:A-;=-.-3A-:I<-2-3-;A/-0-.J:A-KA<-/:R, ,%$.R/-:)A$-gJ/-/-+-3:A-.0J-2o.-.%-3R-$>3-2-<%-28A/-3J.-0<-35%?G%-kA-=3-?R$?-+-3:A-.0J-2o.-$%-<%-=-3R-$>3-IA-2-$%-.-3A-<%-2v<-$9$?-.%-, 3R-$>3-IA-2-<%-28A/-3J.-35%?-/A-$%-3A-$%-$A-H.0<-3J.-0:A-H2-0-3-%J?-?R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
319
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.1.2.2. The Buddha’s statements that prove
the example to be indefinite
Even though, like the child of a childless woman,
Dreams and so forth do not truly arise,
That does not render them invisible to worldly beings,
And so your assertion is invalid. (110)
You claim, “If things do not exist in reality’s precise nature, then conventionally as well they would be just like the child of a childless woman.” The
pervasion is not definite here,7 because even though forms and so forth—
just like dreams and so forth—do not truly arise, that does not render them
invisible to worldly beings.
The meaning of this is that the Buddha’s eight examples of illusion in
the world are equivalent to children of childless women in that they have
no inherent nature, but the dream appearances and so forth that comprise
these eight examples are suitable to appear, whereas the children of childless women are not. Similarly, forms and children of childless women
equally lack inherent nature, but this does not mean that they are equivalent in terms of whether or not they appear. [457]
320
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-<A$?-0-.%-, =%-.%-3A-:$=-2-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
3R-$>3-2-=-<%-$A-2.$-*A.-GA?,,
*J-2-.J-*A.-.-3J.-:)A$-gJ/-.:%-,,
;R.-3A/-.J-28A/-.%R?-:.A-!/-%R-2R,,
*A.-GA?-:)A$-gJ/-.J-*A.-.-3-*J?,, 111
.J?-/-.2-3-0-=-HR.-GA?-2c=-2g$-L-2:A-{2?-3J.-.J, #R-2R-&$$9$?-?R$?-!/-mR2-+-<%-28A/-IA?-*J-2<-#?-]%?-/?-.R/-.3-0<-*J2-:$R$-0-3-;A/-/R-8J?-)A-v<-3R-$>3-IA-2-=-<%-$A-2.$-*A.-GA?-*J-2-.J#R-/-*A.-.-!J, .R/-.3-0<-3J.-&A%-:)A$-gJ/-,-~.-.:%-;R.-0-3A/-0-.J28A/-.-$9$?-?R$?-GA-.%R?-0R-:.A-!/-%R-2R-*A.-GA?-:)A$-gJ/-!/-mR2.%-.J-*A.-.R/-.3-.-3-*J?-+J, .J.-/-2.J/-0-$*A?-!<-3R?-0-.%-V=2:A-KA<, %R-2R-*A.-GA?-*J-2-8J?-L-2-:.A-]R-=-3-2vR?-0<-<%-$A-35/-*A.GA?-*J-2-!J, .J-/A-2.J/-0-$*A?-!<-3J.-.J, :#R<-:.?-:(A%-PR=-IA-o:V?-:.A-,3?-&.-=-%R-2R-*A.-.%-<%-28A/-;R.-/-.J-v<-.J-2&R?-3A/-.%-,
$8/-=-3A-2vR?-0-.%-, $8/-.-3A-:I<-2-8A$-;A/-.$R?-=, 2&R?-3A/?R$?-$?3-0R-.J-(R?-$%-$A:%-$/?-$%-=-.J.-/-3-8$?-0:A-KA<,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
321
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.2. This fault does not apply to the
Middle Way
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.2.1. Why there is no contradiction between
the Middle Way and logical reasoning
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.2.2. Why there is no contradiction between
the Middle Way and the Buddha’s statements
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.2.1. Why there is no contradiction between
the Middle Way and logical reasoning
Just as the identity of the child of a childless woman
Arises neither in genuine nor worldly reality,
So it is that all things do not arise in essence,
Either genuinely or in the world. (111)
Thus, there is no opportunity for you to challenge us, the proponents of
the Middle Way, because we do not refute the arising of forms and so
forth in genuine reality while asserting that they do inherently arise in
relative reality. For just as the identity of the child of a childless woman
does not arise either in reality’s precise nature, meaning genuine reality,
or in worldly conventional reality, so it is that all things, forms and everything else, do not arise in essence either in genuine reality’s precise nature
or in the relative reality of the world. This is the case because when one
analyzes, one finds that both of the two truths transcend conceptual fabrications.
If something actually arose in essence, that would mean that its arising
would not depend on conceptual mind, but rather, that it would arise by
virtue of its own specific characteristics. Such arising does not occur in
either of the two truths, because if all the causes and results of samsara’s
bondage and nirvana’s liberation had any essence or nature of their own,
they would not be created or made by anything, they would not depend
on anything else, and they would not change into anything else. If one analyzes, however, one cannot find any of these three qualities in either the
appearance or the true nature of any phenomenon at all.
322
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
.J-KA<-:.A-v<-!R/-0?-(R?-i3?-!/,,
$.R.-/?-8A-8A%-*J-V=-<%-28A/-IA?,,
;R%?-?-M-%/-:.?-0-$?%?-I<-0,,
.J-KA<-g$-+-*J-2-;R.-3-;A/,, 112
(R?-,3?-&.-2.J/-0-$*A?-!<-g$-+-*J-2-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, 2>.-3-,$-0.J:A-KA<, :.A-v<-!R/-0-?%?-o?-GA?, ,(R?-GA-:#R<-=R-2{R<-2-/, ,$.R./?-8A-8A%-3-*J?-0, ,<%-28A/-M-%/-:.?-0-;A, ,(R?-i3?-3$R/-0R-HR.GA?-2!/, ,&J?-$9$?-/?-i3-3HJ/-2<-IA-(R?-i3?-!/-$.R.-/?-8A8A%-*J-2-.%-V=-=-<%-28A/-IA?-;R%?-?-M-%/-=?-:.?-0<-$?%?-0<I<-0-.J:A-KA<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
323
2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.2.2. Why there is no contradiction
between the Middle Way and the Buddha’s statements
Therefore, the Teacher taught
That all phenomena are primordially peace, free from arising,
And that their true nature is perfect nirvana.
Therefore, phenomena never arise. (112)
No phenomenon ever arises in either of the two truths, for the reasons that
have just been described, and also, because as our teacher the Buddha
taught in the Cloud of Jewels Sutra:8
Protector, when you turned the Wheel of Dharma,
You taught that phenomena are primordially peace,
Unborn, and by nature nirvana.
Thus the Buddha stated that all phenomena from form through omniscience are primordially peace, free from arising, and by nature perfect nirvana, perfectly beyond suffering. Therefore, phenomena never arise.
324
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
23-?R$?-:.A-.$-.J-*A.-.-3J.-&A%-,,
:)A$-gJ/-<2-+-P$?-0<-;R.-)A-28A/,,
.J-28A/-.%R?-0R-,3?-&.-:I<-2?-/,,
3R-$>3-2-.%-35%?-0<-,=-3A-:I<,, 113
<%-$A-#J-0-LJ-5-.%-3.R-#J-0?-.%R?-0R-i3?-.R/-.3-0<-3J.-/-,-~.-.-;%3J.-0<-:I<-<R-8J?-2c=-.-3J.-.J, HJ.-v<-/-23-0-.%-/$?-5=-?R$?:.A-.$-!/-mR2-2+$?-;R.-;A/-0:A-KA<-.R/-.3-.J-*A.-.-3J.-&A%-:)A$-gJ/IA-<2-+-P$?-0<-;R.-&J?, ,$%-=-2&R3-.%-]R-;A?-$8/, ,2?=-/-.J-]R3A-:)$-0, ,23-(-28A/-.-!/-mR2-+, ,;R.-.J-.R/-.3-;R.-$8/-/R, ,8J?<$?-0-2+$?-;R.-.-#?-]%?-0-)A-v-2-28A/-.J-28A/-.-$9$?-?R$?.J.-/-3J.-G%-:)A$-gJ/-P$?-%R<-3-2g$?-*3?-.$<-.%R?-0R-,3?&.-G%-$%-2<-:I<-2?-/-.J-*A.-.-3J.-/-,-~.-.-;%-3R-$>3-IA-2-.%35%?-0<-$+/-3J.-.-,=-2<-3A-:I<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
325
[461.3] 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.3. It is illogical for other Buddhist
schools to attack the Middle Way
In your tradition, you say that vases and so forth do not truly exist
At the same time that they are renowned in the world.
In fact, all things are just like that,
And it does not follow that they are like the child of a childless woman. (113)
Our own Particularist (Vaibhashika) and Sutra (Sautrantika) schools9 cannot challenge the Middle Way position by saying, “If things do not exist
in genuine reality, they necessarily must not exist conventionally either.”
The reason for this is that the followers of these schools themselves assert
that vases, forests, and so forth are relative imputations, and therefore they
do not exist in the precise nature of genuine reality at the same time that
their existence is renowned in the world. As is stated in the Abhidharmakosha:10
When things are destroyed or mentally dissected,
Nothing remains for mind to know.
Such things, like vases, water, and so forth, exist relatively,
And what exists genuinely is something different.
Thus, just as these schools assert coarse things to exist as conceptual imputations, so it is that when forms and all other things are analyzed they are
found not to exist, while at the same time from the perspective of how
things are renowned in the world—the unanalyzed, superficial way things
seem to be—all these things appear. Therefore, that things do not exist in
the precise nature of reality does not mean that they are, like the child of
a childless woman, completely nonexistent in conventional reality as well.
326
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, !/-mR2-GA-*J-2-gJ/-:VJ=-.-2!/-0-.%R?-.%-, gJ/-:VJ=gR$?-0:A-1/-;R/-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
$%-KA<-o-3J.-0-.%-.2%-K$-$A,
o-=-?R$?-.%-2.$-$8/-$*A?-!-=?,,
.%R?-i3?-*J-2<-:I<-2-3-;A/-0,,
.J-KA<-2gJ/-/?-<2-+-*J-2<-:I<,, 114
$=-+J-HR.-GA?-3,:-28A-=?-*J-2-2!$-/, 3-<A$-0-.%-:.-LJ.-=?-i3>J?-.%-?-M$-?R$?-!/-mR2-+-*J-2-)A-v<-%J?-8J-/, 3-.J.-P$?-0<:)A$-gJ/-IA-,-~.-3A-2&.-0-.J:A-(J.-.-?-2R/-$%-43-IA-o-nJ/-:.A-=-2gJ//?-M-$-=-?R$?-0:A-:V?-2-:.A-.$-<2-+-*J-2<-:I<-+J, $%-$A-KA<-/)A-{.-2>.-0:A-5=-IA-o-3J.-0-.%-.2%-K$-$A-o-=-?R$?-0-.%-, 2.$.%-$8/-.%-$*A?-!-=?-.%R?-0R-i3?-2.J/-0-$*A?-!<-*J-2<-:I<-23-;A/-0-.J:A-KA<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
327
[463.14] 2.3.1.1.1.2.2. A teaching on how it is that the
arising in relative reality is dependent arising
2.3.1.1.1.2.2.1. The actual explanation of how relative arising is
dependent arising
2.3.1.1.1.2.2.2. The benefits of realizing dependent arising
2.3.1.1.1.2.2.1. The actual explanation of how relative
arising is dependent arising
Things do not arise causelessly, nor from Ishvara,
Nor from self, nor from other, nor from both;
Therefore, it is clear that things arise
Perfectly in dependence upon their causes and conditions. (114)
Someone may ask, “If you refute arising from the four extremes, then why
is it certain that in relative reality consciousness will arise from ignorance
and karmic action, sprouts will arise from seeds, and so forth?”
In order to avoid eliminating worldly conventions concerning what is
unanalyzed and commonly renowned, one should rely on the understanding that results arise perfectly in dependence upon causes and conditions that are mere appearances, as is the case with sprouts arising from
seeds and so forth. That things dependently arise in this way is clear because
as has been explained, in both of the two truths things do not arise causelessly, from Ishvara, from self, from other, or from both self and other.
328
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, v-2-%/-0-,3?-&.-GA-$*J/-0R-LJ.-0-.%-, .J:A-o-35/-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
$%-KA<-.%R?-0R-2gJ/-/?-<2-:L%-2?,,
gR$-0-:.A-.$-2g$-0<-3A-/?-0,,
.J-KA<-gJ/-:L%-<A$?-0-:.A-;A?-/A,,
v-%/-S-2-3,:-.$-$&R.-0<-LJ.,, 115
.J-v<-nJ/-:.A-0-43-IA-gJ/-:L%-2>.-0?-o-3J.-=?-*J-2-?R$?-GA-gR$-02^R$-0<-3-9., nJ/-:.A-0-43-IA-gJ/-:L%-<A$?-0-:.A-;A?-/A-3,<-:6B/IA-v-2-%/-0:A-S-2-3,:-.$-$&R.-0<-LJ.-0-;A/-+J, $%-KA<-.%R?-0Ri3?-:.A-=-2gJ/-/?-:.A-<2-+-:L%-8J?-0?-3-.J.-0<-*J-:$$-o:V?-P$?-0-v<-IA-$%-MR%-43-:P2-GA, .J-=?-$8/-.-g$-(.-.%R?-0R.%R?-3J.-?R$?-$*A?-:6B/-IA-gR$-0-:.A-.$-,3?-&.-.R/-.3-.-3-9.-,~.-.:%-2g$-0<-3A-/?-0-.J:A-KA<-<R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
329
2.3.1.1.1.2.2.2. The benefits of realizing dependent arising
2.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.1. It is the remedy for all inferior views
2.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.2. Why it is such
2.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.1. Realizing dependent arising is the remedy
for all inferior views
Since things arise in perfect dependence,
Concepts of duality cannot withstand analysis.
Therefore, the reason of dependent arising
Cuts through all the nets of inferior views. (115)
Thus is the way that the description of merely conditional dependent arising reverses the concepts of causeless arising and so forth. That is not all,
however, for the reason of merely conditional dependent arising also cuts
through all the nets of inferior views, of clinging to extremes, because by
explaining that things arise one in perfect dependence upon another, it
allows, from the perspective of no analysis, for the mere experiences of the
appearances of the arising and ceasing of causes and results as they are
renowned in the world; and at the same time, it demonstrates that apart
from that, no concepts of duality—such as thoughts of permanence,
extinction, things, the absence of things, or anything else—can withstand
analysis, not only from the perspective of genuine reality, but also from the
perspective of conventional reality as well.
330
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
gR$-i3?-.%R?-0R-;R.-/-:I<-2-!J,,
.%R?-0R-)A-v<-3J.-0<-;R%?-.J.-9A/,,
.%R?-0R-3J.-0<-:.A-i3?-3A-:L%-.0J<,,
2.->A%-3J.-0<-3J-;R.-3A/-.J-28A/,, 116
2.$-$8/-g$-(.-=-?R$?-gR$-0-i3?-(R?-!/-=-.%R?-0R-;R.-/-*J-2<:I<-2-!J-2>.-0:A-<A$?-0?-.%R?-0R-i3?-<%-28A/-)A-v<-3J.-0<;R%?-?-.J.-9A/-0?-:1$?-0?-3-$9A$?-0:A-5=-IA?-$9A$?-0?.%R?-0R-U-<2-43-;%-3J.-0<-3,R%-2-i3?-=-/A-$9$?-?R$?-GA-.%R?0R<-gR$-0-:.A-i3?-3A-:L%-!J, .0J<-/-2.->A%-3J.-0<-3J-;R.-0-3A/-0-.J28A/-/R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
331
[473] 2.3.1.1.1.2.2.2.2. Why realizing dependent arising is the
remedy for all inferior views
Thoughts can only arise when things exist,
But thorough analysis has shown how things do not exist.
With things not existing, thoughts do not arise,
Just as in the absence of fuel, fire does not burn. (116)
Thoughts of self, other, permanence, extinction, and so forth can only arise
when among phenomena there are some existent things, but the reasons
that have been explained demonstrate with thorough analysis that things
have no inherent nature. Thus, for the noble ones who see, in a way that
involves no seeing at all, that not even the subtlest things exist, thoughts
of the entities of forms and so forth do not arise, just as in the absence of
fuel, fire does not burn.
332
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-=, i3-.JR.-GA-:V?-2-.%R?-.%-, i3-.JR.-36.-0-,$?-eJ:A-o=?-L%-2<-2!/-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
?R-?R:C-*J-2R-i3?-/A-gR$-0?-2&A%?,,
3A-gR$-i=-:LR<-0-/A-PR=-:I<-2?,,
gR$-i3?-=R$-0<-I<-0-$%-;A/-.J,,
i3-0<-.JR.-0:A-:V?-2<-3#?-i3?-$?%?,, 117
.J?-/-<%-28A/-!R%-0-*A.-#R%-.-3-(.-0:A-?R-?R-*J-2R-i3?-/A-<%-$A-i3-0<gR$-0?-2&A%?->A%-, .J-*A.-,$?-?-LR/-0:A-:1$?-0-3R?-0-$%-=:%-3AgR$-i=-:LR<-0-/A-PR=-2<-:I<-2?-3,<-:6B/-IA-gR$-0-i3?-3-=?-0<=R$-0<-I<-0-$%-;A/-.J, aR2-.0R/-IA?-2!/-2&R?-=?-i3-0<-.J.0:A-:V?-2<-3#?-i3?-$?%?-?R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
333
2.3.1.1.1.2.3. An explanation of why it is necessary to analyze
thoroughly with logical reasoning
2.3.1.1.1.2.3.1. The result of thorough analysis
2.3.1.1.1.2.3.2. The cause of explaining this thorough analysis to others
was great compassion
2.3.1.1.1.2.3.1. The result of thorough analysis
Ordinary individuals are bound by their concepts
While yogis and yoginis without concepts are free.
What is it that leads to this reversal of concepts?
Thorough analysis—this the wise ones have taught. (117)
Thus, ordinary individuals who have not understood the true nature of
reality, emptiness, are bound by their own concepts, whereas the noble
ones who have realized the precise nature of reality, yogis and yoginis who
do not conceive of any fabrications at all, are free. So, what is it that reverses
all the concepts that cling to extremes, without exception? The wise ones
have taught that such a reversal of concepts is the result of undertaking the
thorough analysis that the Master Nagarjuna explains in his treatise The
Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.
334
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, .%R?-.%-, [/-!-%%-2-.%-, ($?-#%-%%?-+J-i3-0<-.JR.<A$?-0-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
2!/-2&R?-=?-.J.-lR.-=-($?-0:A-KA<,,
3-36.-i3-PR=-KA<-/A-.J-*A.-2!/,, 118 !#
aR2-.0R/-IA-.2-3:A-2!/-2&R?-=?, <A$?-0:A-5S$?-.-3?-i3-0<-.J.0-o-(J<-36.-0-/A-lR.-0-=-($?-0-$8/-5-.22-:.R.-0:A-KA<-3-36.-.R,
,:R-/-&A-8J-/, .J-=?-o-(J<-.J.-0-/A-.J-#R-/-*A.-2!/-0?-:PR-2-!/-IA?(R?-*A.-#R%-.-(.-.J-,<-0-,R2-/-&A-3-<%-8J?-*J-2R-i3-PR=-,R2-0:A-KA<-/A2!/-0-;A/-/R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
$=-+J-.J-*A.-i3-0<-2>.-0-/,,
$8/-$8%-:)A$-0<-:I<-/-*J?-0-3J.,, 118 $%
HR.-GA?-cR=-2?-2g$?-0-,3?-&.-2!$-!J-lR.-0:A-KA<-/-gR$-0-2^R$43-#R-/-:V?-2<-28$-0-3-?R%-%R-~3?-/-3A/-+J, .J.-0-lR.-KA<-3A/G%-$=-+J-.J.-0:A-|R-/?-.J-*A.-i3-0<-2>.-0-/, $8/-$8%-:,.-0.%-V=-2?-*R%-2<-3-/?-+J-hR-eJ?-V$-<A-:)A$-0<-:I<-2-v<-/-#R-2R&$-=-*J?-0-3J.-.R,,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
335
[478.last] 2.3.1.1.1.2.3.2. The cause of explaining this
thorough analysis to others was great compassion
2.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.1. The actual explanation of this topic
2.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.2. Rebutting opposing arguments
2.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.3. Why it is appropriate to abandon attachment and
aversion and then analyze thoroughly
2.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.1. The actual explanation of this topic
Nagarjuna did not present the analyses in his treatise out of fondness
for debate—
Rather, he taught the precise nature in order to perfectly liberate
wandering beings. (118ab)
In his treatise on the Middle Way, the master Nagarjuna presented a vast
and thorough analysis through the use of a great collection of logical reasonings. He did not do this out of a fondness for debate, or of putting others down. What was his motivation, then? It was the following aspiration:
“Would it not be wonderful if through my presentation of this vast analysis that explains the precise nature, all wandering beings could realize
essential reality and gain their freedom!” Thus, he taught his treatise in
order to help ordinary individuals attain perfect liberation.
2.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.2. Rebutting opposing arguments
If, however, when the precise nature of reality is perfectly explained,
Other views collapse, there is no fault in that. (118cd)
Someone may claim, “You refute all of your opponents’ analyses, and since
you debate with them in this way, you cannot posit the mere reversal of
concepts as the only result of your treatise.”
This statement is incorrect, because Middle Way analyses are not presented for the purpose of debating others. However, no one could prevent
a rock mountain from being destroyed by an adamantine vajra, and similarly, when the precise nature of reality is perfectly explained by means of
logical analysis, if others are unable to prevent their views from collapsing
because those views are illogical, we are not at fault.
336
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
<%-$A-v-=-($?-.%-.J-28A/-.,,
$8/-IA-v-=-:O$-$%-gR$-0-*A.,,
.J-KA<-:.R.-($?-#R%-OR-i3-2?=-+J,,
i3-.JR.-0-/A-M<-.-PR=-2<-:I<,, 119
<%-$8/-IA-KR$?-=-($?-#%-S$-0R?-lR.-KA<-(R?-2!/-/-gR$-0-2^R$-3AYA.-0?-<%-$A-v-=-($?-0-.%-, .J-28A/-.-$8/-IA-v-=-:O$-0-$%-;A/0-.J-/A-.%R?-0R<-gR$-0-*A.-;A/-0:A-KA<-gR$-0-.J-3-=R$-0<-,<-0-,R2-0-3;A/-/R, ,(R?-:.A-lR.-(J.-.-3A/-0-.J:A-KA<-<%-$8/-=-:.R.-($?-#R%-ORi3?-2?=-+J-.J-*A.-gR$?-:.R.-GA?-$/?-=$?-=-i3-0<-.JR.-0-/A-M<.-PR=-2<-:I<-<R,
The Refutation of Arising from the Four Extremes—Section B
337
2.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.3. Why it is appropriate to abandon attachment
and aversion and then analyze thoroughly
Attachment to one’s own view
And animosity towards the views of others are exactly concepts.
Therefore, those who do away with attachment and aversion
And then analyze thoroughly will be quickly liberated. (119)
[480] If, motivated by fierce attachment to one’s own view and anger
towards the views of others, one teaches Dharma for the purpose of debate,
it is impossible to reverse one’s concepts. In fact, attachment to one’s own
view and animosity towards the views of others are exactly the concepts of
the true existence of things that prevent one from attaining liberation for
as long as they have not been reversed.
This Dharma, however, was not taught for the purpose of debate, and
therefore, those who do away with attachment to their own view and
aversion towards the views of others and, desiring to realize the precise
nature, thoroughly analyze genuine reality’s abiding mode, will be
quickly liberated.
$*A?-0-=, $%-9$-$A-2.$-.$$-.$R?-0:A-o-35/, .J-.$$-0:A<A$?-0-o?-0<-2>., 2!$-/?-$%-9$-2gJ/-/?-2+$?-0-43-.2!/-0-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
*R/-3R%?-*R/-i3?-3-=?-:)A$-5S$?-=,,
v-=?-L%-2<-]R-;A?-3,R%-I<-&A%-,,
2.$-/A-:.A-;A-;=-.-gR$?-L?-/?,,
i=-:LR<-0-;A?-2.$-/A-:$R$-0<-LJ.,, 120
=%-.%-<A$?-0?-(R?-GA-2.$-2!$-/?-.-/A-$%-9$-$A-2.$-:$R$-0-=,<-:.R.-GA-i=-:LR<-0-;A?-:)A$-v:A-:6B/-!%?-GA-;=-IA-2.$-/A-:$R$0<-LJ.-<A$?-+J, :.R.-($?-?R$?-*R/-3R%?-i3?-.%-*J-c-/-:(A-M-%/?R$?-*R/-i3?-3-=?-0-.%-%-;A<-:6B/-0:A->J?-<2-*R/-3R%?-&/-:)A$5S$?-=-v-2-=?-L%-2<-]R-;A?-3,R%-2<-I<-0?-.$$-<A$?->A%-,
2.$-/A-:)A$-v-:.A:A-.3A$?-;=-.-gR$?-0<-L?-/?-?R,,
Part IV:
The Absence of Personal Self
[485.21]1 The second main point in this chapter,2 the absence of a personal
self,3 has three parts:
1) Why the refutation of personal self is essential
2)The expanded explanation of the reasoning that refutes a personal self
3) What follows from this refutation of personal self, namely, that “self ” is
just an imputation relative to the person
The first of these
Seeing with their rational faculty
That all afflictions and problematic states
Stem from the views of the transitory collection
And understanding that “self ” is their reference point,
Yogis and yoginis refute this self. (120)
Having refuted a self-entity in phenomena using scriptures and logic, we
will now refute personal self in the same way.
There are logical grounds for yogis and yoginis,4 who aspire to liberation, to refute this self, meaning the conceptual referent of the transitory
views, because 1) they see, through the exercise of their faculty of rational
thought, that all afflictions, such as grasping at things out of desire; that
all problematic states, such as birth, aging, sickness, death, and misery; and
that the unsettling ideas that involve clinging to a notion of “mine” all stem
from the views of the transitory collection; and 2) because they have also
understood that “self ” is the reference point for all such views.
340
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-i3-0-s?-.J.-.J-2.$-.$$-0-.%-, .J-*A.-.%-$8/-.-2eR..-3J.-0:A-2.$-.$$-0-.%-, 2!$-0?-3)$-2#-2-$?3, .%-0R-=,
1%-0R-=?-.R/-$8/-0:A-2.$-.$$ 1%-0R-.%-%R-2R-$&A$-0:A-2.$-.$$
1%-0R-.%-gJ/-2gJ/-0:A-2.$-.$$ 1%-0R-.%-w/-0:A-2.$-.$$
2!$-0:A-.R/-2#?-+J-:)A$-v-*A->:A-$*J/-0R<-:I<-5=-.%-s, .%-0R-=KR$?-}-3-2eR.-0-.%-, .J-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
9-0R-g$-.%R?-LJ.-0R-3A/-0:A-2.$,
;R/-+/-L-3J.-3-!J$?-i3?-GA?-2g$?,,
.J:A-.LJ-&%-9.-&%-9.-=-2gJ/-/?,,
3-!J$?-&/-i3?-=$?-/A-,-..-:I<,, 121
.J?-/-*J?-2:3-2.$-.J-*A.-GA?-;=-.J-.$-*J-2<-=R%?-,R.-0?-9-2-0R8J?-L-!J, *J?-2-.J-/A-;=-=-*J-2<-=R%?-,R.-0:A-?J3?-0-;R.-0:A-<%-$A%R-2R-;A/-0:A-KA<, .J:A-5K-i3-:I<-8-2-v<-2.$-8-2-3-;A/-0?-g$-0:A.%R?-
The Absence of Personal Self
341
[499] The second point, the expanded explanation of the reasoning that
refutes a personal self, has three parts:
1) The refutation of self through a five-point analysis
2) The refutation of a self that is inexpressible as being the same as or different from the skandhas
3) A concluding summary of the refutation of self
The first of these, the refutation of self through a five-point analysis, has
the following five parts:
1) The refutation of a self differing from the skandhas
2) The refutation of a self the same in essence as the skandhas
3) The refutation of a self that is supported upon or is the support for the
skandhas
4) The refutation of a self possessing the skandhas
5) A summary of the topics included in these refutations providing the
remedy for the views of the transitory collection
[500] The first of these, the refutation of a self differing from the skandhas,
has two parts:
1) The statement of the opponent
2) The refutation of that position
The first of these
The self imputed by Tirthikas is defined
As observer, a permanent thing but not a creator;
As lacking in qualities and being inactive.
And due to some very slight distinctions here,
Diverse traditions of Tirthikas developed. (121)
[501.1] There are Tirthikas, namely, the Samkhyas,5 who impute a self
which they define as follows.
1) The individual6 or, in other words, self, can be designated an observer
in the sense of being the experiencer of objects, because it exists at the very
heart of any mental operation constituting experience of objects. 2) Unlike
the permutations [of primordial matter, prakriti,] the self is not subject
to dissolution; it is, therefore, a permanent entity. 3) But, unlike that
342
The Moon of Wisdom
0R:R,, <%-28A/-.%-i3-:I<-LJ.-0R-;A/-0-v<-2.$-/A-LJ.-0R-3A/-0:A2.$-*A.-;A/-+J, .J-/A-L-2-=-~R3?-=?-&/-;A/-0:A-KA<, .J-;R/-+/-3J.0-*A.-.J-h=-3/-~A%-!R2?-GA-<%-28A/-3J.-0:A-KA<, L-2-3J.-0-*A.-;A/+J, H2-0:A-KA<-.J-/A-*J?-2:A-H.-0<-.$-$R,, 3-!J$?-P%?-&/-i3?GA?-2g$?->A%-, 2.$-.J:A-.LJ-2-&%-9.-&%-9.-=-2gJ/-/?-3-!J$?&/-i3?-GA-=$?-/A-,-..-.-I<,
$*A?-0-=, 2.$-$A-%R-2R-.$$ H.-0<-.$$ 1%-0R-=?-$8/-.-3A:,., %<-:6B/-IA-gJ/-3-;A/-0<-2!/-0-.%-28A,
.%-0R-/A,
3R-$>3-2-v<-*J-2-.%-V=-KA<,,
.J-v<-I<-0:A-2.$-/A-;R.-3A/-8A%-,,
:.A-/A-%<-:6B/-gJ/-.:%-3A-<A$?-=,,
:.A-/A-!/-mR2-+-;%-;R.-3A-:.R.,, 122
g$-0-.%-9-0R-=-?R$?-0-.J-v<-I<-0:A-2.$-/A-;R.-0-3-;A/-&A%-, 8J?3-;A/-+J, *J-2-.%-V=-2:A-KA<, .J-v:A-2.$-:.A-/A-:)A$-gJ/-IA-%<:6B/-z/-*J?-GA-gJ/-.:%-3A-<A$?-+J, .J:A-:6B/-!%?-.%-3A-3,/-0:AKA<, :.A-/A-.R/-.3-0<-3J.-0<-3-9.-!/-mR2-+:%-%<-:6B/-z/-*J?-GA;=-.-;R.-0<-3A-:.R.-.J, .J-v<-3-.3A$?-0:A-KA<-3R-$>3-2-v-2:R,,
8J?-$R%-3-=:%-.0J<-.<-<R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
343
primordial matter and its process of permutation, the self is not a creator,
because it is passive.7 4) It is lacking in qualities in the sense that it does
not have the prakriti ’s qualities of motility, darkness and lightness. 5) It is
inactive, because it is all-pervasive.
These are the distinctive features of the individual, or self, as imputed
by those Tirthikas called “the Samkhyas.” Differing traditions of Tirthikas
developed on the basis of very slight distinctions made in this context.
[503] The second, the refutation of that position, has four parts:
1) The refutation of the self as an entity
2) The refutation of its qualities
3) The unfeasibility of there being a self differing from the skandhas
4) The explanation of the point that such a self is not the support for the
conception of “I”
The first of these
Just as unborn as the son of a barren woman,
The self they describe could, therefore, not exist,
And thus makes no sense as the base for the concept of “I”;
But we do not claim it exists even relatively. (122)
When the root text says, “The self they describe” as being permanent, the
experiencer, and so on “could not exist,” that is indeed so. It could not
exist, because it has never arisen.
It is just as illogical for such a self to be the foundation for the instinctive idea of “I” found in the world, because the way such a self is imagined
to be8 does not correspond to the instinctive idea. So, not only does this
self not exist ultimately, we do not assert it to exist even relatively as the
reference point for the instinctive idea “myself.”
Since such a self is never observed, it is like the son of a barren woman.
This example is relevant to any of the above-mentioned traits ascribed to
this self.
344
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
$%-KA<-2!/-2&R?-2!/-2&R?-=?-.J:A-H.,,
3-!J$?-i3?-GA?-$%-2!/-.J-!/-=,,
<%-P$?-3-*J?-$+/-5B$?-GA?-$/R.-0,,
.J-KA<-.J-H.-!/-G%-;R.-3-;A/,, 123
2.$-.J:A-H.-0<-!/-G%-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, $%-$A-KA<-3-!J$?-i3?-GA?<%-<%-$A-2!/-2&R?-.%-2!/-2&R?-=?-2.$-.J:A-H.-0<-9-0R-g$-.%R??R$?-$%-2!/-0-.J-!/-<%-*A.-=-P$?-0:A-eJ?-.0$-3-*J?-0:A-$+/5B$?-GA?-$/R.-0-.J:A-KA<-<R,, %$-.R/-2.$-g$-0-3A/-+J, 3-*J?-0:AKA<-3R-$>3-2-28A/-8J?-0:A-g$?-.0J?-2.$-$A-H.-0<-,3?-&.-=$/R.-0<-LJ.-.R,,
$?3-0-/A,
.J-KA<-1%-0R-=?-$8/-2.$-3J.-.J,,
1%-0R-3-$+R$?-.J-:6B/-3-P2-KA<,, 124 !#
o-35/-.J:A-KA<-1%-0R-=?-$8/-.-2.$-3J.-.J, 1%-0R-=?-,-..-0<-;R./-?R-?R<-29%-.-<%-2<-:I<-2-=?-1%-0R-=?-3-$+R$?-0<-g$-?R$?GA?-H.-0<-.-L?-0:A-2.$-.J-:6B/-0-3-P2-0:A-KA<-<R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
345
The second, the refutation of its qualities
The features Tirthika texts ascribe to this
They themselves proclaim are all unborn.
But the very same reason invalidates their case,
Which explains why none of these features exist either.
(123)
All of the specific features of their “self ” are nonexistent as well, because,
no matter which features the Tirthikas teach in their treatises as belonging
to this self—such as its being a permanent entity, the experiencer, and so
on—all of these are proclaimed in their own inferential reasoning to be
unborn, but this is the very reason that invalidates their case. The referent
of their statements, the permanent self, could not exist, because it does not
arise, like the son of a barren woman, as the above root text points out.
This reason, along with the example supporting it, invalidates all features
of this self.
[504] The third, the unfeasibility of there being a self differing from the
skandhas
And therefore there is no self distinct from the skandhas,
Since none is perceived in isolation from skandhas. (124ab)
Based on the reason just given, it can further be stated that there is no self
differing from the skandhas, because a self existing in separation from the
skandhas would have to be perceived on its own, but no self possessing features such as permanent duration and so on is perceived to exist in isolation from the skandhas.
346
The Moon of Wisdom
28A-0-=-2!/-2>.-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
:)A$-gJ/-%<-:6B/-]R-;A-gJ/-.-;%-,,
3A-:.R.-.J-<A$-3A/-0:%-2.$-v:A-KA<,, 124 $%
1%-0R-=?-,-..-0:A-2.$-3J.-0<-3-9.-g$-?R$?-GA?-H.-0<-.-L?-0:A2.$-.J-/A-:)A$-gJ/-0-.$-$A-%<-:6B/-IA-]R-:)A$-v-z/-*J?-GA-gJ/-/3;=-.-;%-3A-:.R.-.J, g$-?R$?-GA-2.$-.J-v-2-<A$-0-3A/-0:A-LA?-0:%3%R/-8J/-IA-.2%-$A?-2.$-.%-2.$-$A-2<-2v-2:A-KA<,
$*A?-0-/A,
$%-.$-..-:PR-2{=-3%-2n=-I<-0,,
.J?-G%-3-*J?-g$-:.A-3-3,R%-=,,
%<-:6B/-.J-.$-=-;%-:)$-3,R%-!J,,
.J?-/-1%-0R-=?-$8/-2.$-:$:%-3J.,, 125
$=-+J-.-v-2.$-g$-?R$?-GA-H.-0<-.-L?-0<-3->J?-G%-}<-$R3?-GA.2%-$A?-2.$-.J:A-;=-&/-IA-%<-:6B/-;R.-.R-~3-/-3-;A/-/R-8J?-!R/-0-/A,
1%-0R-=?-,-..-$8/-I<-IA-2.$-:$:-;%-3J.-.J, ?J3?-&/-$%-.$..-:PR<-2{=-3%-.-o.-3<-*J?->A%-.-.%-;%-<A%-0R<-.J-=?-3A-wR$-0<2n=-2<-I<-0-.J-.$-$A?-G%-!J, .M=-?R$?-GA-?J3?-&/-,3?-&.GA?-3-!J$?-LJ.-GA-:.R.-0:A-3-*J?-g$-0:A-2.$-:.A-.%-, ><-4S%-#-0(J/-0R-
The Absence of Personal Self
347
The fourth, the explanation of the point that such a self is not the support
for the conception of “I,” has two parts:
1) The presentation
2) The explanation of this
The first of these
One could not even assert such a self to be
The foundation for worldly beings’ idea “me,”
Because they have no awareness of such a self,
Although they entertain the notion of “I.” (124cd 9)
Not only is there no self existing in separation from the skandhas, one can
furthermore not assert a self possessing such properties as permanence and
so on to be the reference point or foundation for the views of the transitory collection instinctively held by ordinary beings whereby they conceive
of “me,” because naive beings are not aware of such a self which is permanent and so on and yet, due to their strong clinging, they entertain the
notion of “I” and “mine.”
The second, the explanation of this
Those who have been in the animal realm for kalpas
Have never seen this unborn, permanent self,
And yet one can see they have a notion of self;
And thus there could be no other “self ” than the skandhas.
(125)
Now you might be thinking, “Even though beings are not immediately
cognizant of a self having such features as permanence and so on, their
present idea of an ‘I’ derives from previous habituation to such a self, which
manifests as the observer of the objects of their experience.”
But the Buddha teaches that this is not so. There is no self at all that is
other than or separate from the skandhas. Sentient beings, including the
hell beings and those in the other realms of samsara, such as those who
have spent many kalpas as animals—who have been born continuously in
that state and who, even now, remain unable to free themselves from it for
a very long time—do not see this unborn, permanent self asserted by the
348
The Moon of Wisdom
28J.-0:A-=?-:V?-GA-gJ/-IA-2.$-,-~.-5.-P2-GA-2+$?-;R.-.%-,
2+$?-0-43-IA?-3-5B3-0<-2+$?-.R/-24=-/?-3-fJ.-o:A-g$?-GA.$$-L:A-2.$-?R$?-8J/-;=-.-3-3,R%-=, 1%-0R-=-%<-:6B/-0-/A-.J.$-=-;%-:)$-0<-3,R%-!J, .J?-/->J?-<2-&/-.$-$A?-%<-:6B/-IA-gJ/.-2.$-.J-v-2-:)R$-YA.-0-3A/-0:A-KA<, %<-:6B/-IA-gJ/-IA-2.$-2+$?28$-$A-(R?-;A/-0-.%-, .J-,-~.-0:A-3%R/-?3-5.-3:A-;=-.-:)R$-0:A:.A-v-2-/A-:)A$-gJ/-.%-2!/-2&R?-$%-.-;%-3-P$?-0:A-gR$-2+$?-?R,,
$*A?-0-=-KR$?-}-3-2eR.-0-.%-, .J-.$$-0-$*A?, .%-0R-=-:.R.-5=.%-, .LJ-2-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
1%-0R-=?-$8/-2.$-P2-3J.-0:A-KA<,,
2.$-v:A-.3A$?-0-1%-0R-#R-/:R,, 126 !#
3%-0R?-2!<-2-?R$?-<%-#J-/-<J, 2.$-v:A-.3A$?-0-1%-0R-#R-/-;A/-+J,
)A-{.-2>.-0:A-<A$?-0?-1%-0R-=?-$8/-0:A-2.$-P2-0-3J.-0:A-KA<,
.J?-/-2.$-/A-1%-0R-43-#R-/:R-8J?-9J<-<R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
349
Tirthikas. Nor do they see the self described by the great Shar Tsongkhapa
to have validly imputed conventional existence as the support for karmic
actions and their consequences. Nor do they ever actually observe a referent object for the idea of such a self having such properties, a referent object
that is refutable on the grounds of its not being found by those not satisfied with the mere imputation when they look for the referent of that
imputation.
What is seen is merely that beings entertain this notion of the skandhas
being an “I”; but, for the reasons given, those with sufficient understanding could not possibly posit the actual existence of such a self as the support for this notion of “I.” The so-called “self ” thought of as being such a
support is, therefore, just an imputed phenomenon. It is posited in conventional terms as an object of direct valid cognition but is merely an
imputed concept not even borne out by common consensus in worldly
experience or in text books.
[505] The second point, the refutation of a self the same in essence as the
skandhas, has two parts:
1) The statement of the opponent
2) The refutation of that position
The first of these, the statement of the opponent, also includes two:
1) The way they assert their position
2) The divisions
The first of these
Since a self distinct from the skandhas is not established,
The view of self refers to the skandhas alone. (126ab)
Some of our own systems, such as the Sammitiya,10 state that the only reference point for the view of self is the skandhas, because a self distinct from
the skandhas cannot be established through logic as has just been demonstrated; therefore, what one is calling “self ” is just the skandhas.
350
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
#-&A$-2.$-v:A-gJ/-.-1%-0R-/A,,
s-(<-;%-:.R.-#-&A$-?J3?-$&A$-:.R.,, 126 $%
.J-=-#-&A$-2.$-v:A-gJ/-.-#J-.3A$?-;=-2.$-+-1%-0R-/A-s-&<-;%-:.R.,
#-&A$-?J3?-$&A$-0R-2.$-+-:.R.-.R,,
$*A?-0-=-.$$-0-.%R?-.%-, 2.$-v-3A-%R%-2<-,=-2?-3)$-2#-2$*A?, .%-0R-=, $/R.-LJ.-2eR., 12-LJ.-.$$ $%-9$-2gJ/-/?$.$?-0-$?3, .%-0R-=, <A$?-0?-$/R., =%-$A?-$/R., i=:LR<-0:A-3,R%-2?-$/R.-0-$?3,
The Absence of Personal Self
351
The second, the divisions
Some say all five skandhas form the base
For the view of self; some say only the mind. (126cd)
Some assert all five skandhas to be the basis or reference point for the view
of self in that they assert all five to be the self. Others say only primary
mind11 is the self.
[506] The second, the refutation of that position, includes two:
1) The actual refutation
2) A summary concluding this section by stating the consequence [that
those who hold the Buddhist views just refuted] do not abandon the
view of self
The first, the actual refutation, has three sections:
1) The presentation of what invalidates their position
2) The refutation of what is given as a proof
3) The imputation relative to the person
The first of these, the presentation of what invalidates their position, has
three parts:
1) The invalidation of their position through reasoning
2) The invalidation through scriptures
3) The invalidation through yogic perception
The first of these, the invalidation of their position through reasoning [has
three parts12]:
1) The consequence that there would be numerous selves and that the conception of self could not be abandoned
2) The consequence that they hold a view of annihilation
3) The summary concluding this section
352
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
$=-+J-1%-0R-2.$-/-.J-KA<-.J,,
3%-2?-2.$-.J-.$-G%-3%-2<-:I<,,
2.$-/A-m?-?-:I<-8A%-.J<-v-2,,
m?-=-:)$-0?-KA/-&A-=R$-3A-:I<,, 127
.J-v<-/-o.-$&A$-=-2.$-.%-$%-9$-?R$?-.J-.$-G%-3%-0R<-:I<-+J,
$=-+J-1%-0R-i3?-2.$-;A/-/-.J:A-KA<, H2-!J, $9$?-5S<-?R$?-.J.$-(J?-3%-2?-?R,, ?J3?-2.$-;A/-0<-:.R.-0-.J-*A.-GA-KA<-3A$-?R$?S$-.%-.J-.$-$A-{.-&A$-.-3?-2.$-G%-.J-~J.-.-:I<-<R,, :.R.-.R-8J-/,
=%-=?,
:)A$-gJ/-*J-2-/-$%-9$-*$-$&A$-*J:R,,
8J?-0-.%-:$=-=R,, 2.$-/A-m?-?-:I<-8A%-8J?-2.$-m?-?-,=,
$9$?-?R$?-.?-$?3-IA-m?-%%?-0-=-1%-0R<-2eR.-&A%-.J-*A.-2.$-+#?-=J/-0:A-KA<, :.R.-.R-8J-/,
=%-=?,
.$J-aR%-.$-1%-0R-:.A-.$-/A-3A%-43-,-~.-43-2+$?0-43-!J, :.A-v-!J, :.?-0:A-.?-.%-3-:R%?-0:A-.?.%-/3-3#:-.%-M-%/-=?-:.?-0-.%-$%-9$-$R,,
8J?-.%-,
The Absence of Personal Self
353
The first of these
On the other hand, if the skandhas were the self,
The many of these would also mean many selves;
The self would be a substance, and viewing it thus
Would not be mistaken, since a substance would be experienced. (127)
If that were the case, one and the same mindstream would be many selves,
persons, or whatever other terms one might apply, because the skandhas
would be the self and there are many skandhas, namely, form, feeling, etc.
The same would apply to the assertion that primary mind is the self. If
it were, the self would be identical with the six forms of consciousness,
visual and so on, as well as the numerous instants associated with these,
and there would thus be many selves.
If they say, “We concede that point,” they fall into contradiction with
the scripture which says, “When birth takes place in the world, just one
person is born.”
[The root text continues, “If the skandhas were the self,] the self would
be a substance.” [We take up this point and further pursue it thus:] It follows that the self would be a substance, because [the opponent here] claims
the skandhas of form and so on to be aggregations of substances having
temporal existence13 and assert these skandhas to be the self.
If they say, “We concede that point,” they fall into contradiction with
the scriptures [they themselves accept], which say,
Bhikshus, these five,14 namely, the past, the future, space, nirvana
and the person,
Are merely names, merely conventional expressions, merely
imputations.
and,
354
The Moon of Wisdom
)A-v<-;/-=$-5S$?-i3?-=,,
2gJ/-/?->A%-g<-2eR.-0-v<,,
.J-28A/-1%-0R-i3?-2gJ/-/?,,
!/-mR2-?J3?-&/-&J?-L:R,,
8J?-0-.%-:$=-=R,,
;%-2.$-v-:6B/-!%?-KA/-&A-=R$-+-3A-:I<-2<-,=, 2.$-.J<-2v-2:A;=-m?-;R.-=-:)$-0:A-;=-&/-;A/-0:A-KA<, }R-?J<-=-?R$?-0:A->J?0-v<-<R,,
$*A?-0-=-.%R?-.%-, *J?-%R%-$A-=/-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
M-%/-:.?-5K-%J?-0<-2.$-(.-:I<,,
M-%/-:.?-}R/-{.-&A$-.$-=-/A,,
*J-:)A$-LJ.-0R-3J.-0?-.J-:V?-3J.,,
$8/-IA?-2?$?-=-$8/-IA?-9-2<-:I<,, 128
1%-0R-z$-3J.-.-M-%/-=?-:.?-5K-%J?-0<-2.$-(.-0<-:I<-+J, 2.$1%-0R:C-<%-28A/-;A/-/-.J:A-5K-1%-0R-s-/A-o/-(.-0:A-KA<, :.R.-/,
3,<-v-:6B/-0<-:I<-+J, :)A$-v?-2.$-+-29%-2-.J-*A.-=-g$-(.-GA3,<-:6B/-0:A-KA<, .J-v<-v-2?-2.$-z$-3-3J.-0<-;R%?-?-M-%/=?-:.?-0<-5-2-.%-;%-:$=-2-*A.-.R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
355
Just as one can speak of there being a carriage
[Only] with reference to a collection of parts,
Just so, one can speak of apparent sentient beings
[Only] with reference to the aggregates.
If the self existed as a substance, a further consequence would be that
the form of perception entailing this view of self would not be mistaken,
because the mind involved in viewing the skandhas as the self would be
experiencing a substantially existent object in the same way an eye consciousness would experience a blue form, a yellow one, and so on.15
[507] The second, the consequence that they hold a view of annihilation,
includes two points:
1) The actual consequence
2) The refutation of the response that attempts to disprove this as a fallacy
The first of these
In nirvana the self would definitely be gone;
In the moments before, it would be produced and destroyed.
There would be no performer of actions and thus no result,
And one could gather the karma, another taste it. (128)
When the nirvana without remainder of skandhas was achieved, the self
would most certainly be annihilated if it were of the nature of the skandhas, because the continuum of the five skandhas would come to an end.
If they16 concede this point, it follows that they hold a view involving
an extreme, because clinging to self by entertaining views of the transitory
collection is to subscribe to an extreme involving permanence or annihilation. Furthermore, a self viewed as they view it [namely, as being inexpressible] would be contradictory to their formulating it as “the self of
which there is no remainder when complete nirvana is attained.”
356
The Moon of Wisdom
M-%/-=?-:.?-0<-8$?-0:A-}R/-<R=-IA-{.-&A$-.$-=-/A-1%-0R-i3?-{.&A$-<J-<J-=-*J-:)A$-LJ.-0-28A/-2.$-G%-*J-:)A$-&/-.-:I<-+J, 2.$1%-0R:C-<%-28A/-;A/-0:A-KA<,
;%-!R/-0?,
.J:A-5K-.J:A-.?-/-%-o=-0R-%-=?-/-8J?-L-2<-I<,
&J?-$?%-2<-3A-:I<-+J, .J:A-5K-2.$-G%-=?-v<-8A$-/?=?-$8/-*J-2<-#?-]%?-0:A-KA<,
2!/-2&R?-=?-G%-,
*J-2<-=J/-0-2.$-3-;A/,,
.J-.$-:L%-.%-:)A$-0-;A/,,
*J-2<-]%-2-)A-v-2<,,
*J-2<-=J/-0R-;A/-0<-:I<,,
8J?-?R,,
3-:R%?-0:A-*J-2:A-.?-/-}R/-IA-=?-LJ.-0R:C-2.$-8A$-/?-KA?-gJ/-2.$3J.-0?-2gJ/-0-=?-.%-, .J:A-:V?-2-;%-3J.-0<-:I<-+J, 1%-0R-v<2.$-G%-*J?-/?-:)A$-&A%-:$$-0:A-KA<, ;%-$8/-IA?-2?$?-0:A=?-:V?-=-$8/-IA?-9-2<-:I<-+J, {.-&A$-}-3<-=?-L?-0:A-:V?2-{.-&A$-KA-3<-=R%?-,R.-/, 2.$-}-KA-,-..-0?-$8/-IA?-2?$?-0$8/-IA?-=R%?-,R.-0:A-KA<, :.R.-/, L?-0-(.-9R?-0-.%-3-L?-0:A:V?-2-.%-U.-0<-:I<-<R,, %$-.R/-o-:V?-$8/-.-:.R.-0-=-*R/:.A<-:I<-IA-.2-3-0-=-/A-3A-:I<-+J, =?-:V?-.%-$%-9$-}-KA-?R$?.J-*A.-.%-$8/-$%-.:%-3A-5-2:A-KA<,
The Absence of Personal Self
357
During [the continuum of the mind stream all the way down to and
including] the moments prior to entering nirvana, the self would be produced and destroyed just as the skandhas themselves are produced and
destroyed, namely, instant by instant, because the self would be of the same
nature as the skandhas. [If this were the case,] the Teacher would not have
said, “There was a period during which I was called ‘King Mandhatri’,”
because that would involve asserting that the self of the king would have
been destroyed, just as the body was, and that another body [and self ] were
produced.
Furthermore, as stated in the Treatise on the Middle Way:
The incorporated [skandhas] are not the self—
They arise and disintegrate.
And how could the factors incorporated
Be the incorporator?
During a future birth, which comes after the self who was the previous
karmic agent would have disintegrated, the self who was the support [for
that future life] would no longer exist and, because of that, the actions supported upon it as well as their consequences would not exist either, because
the self would be just like the skandhas in that it too would be produced
and then disintegrate and cease.
Furthermore, the results of the karmic actions accumulated by one
would be experienced by another, because the results produced by actions
during an earlier instant are experienced during a later, and the self of the
earlier and later instants would be different; hence, what was gathered by
one would be tasted by another. If the opponent concedes this point, it
would further mean that results of actions committed could get lost and
results of actions not committed could be encountered.
To say this is to indicate that the Madhyamikas do not fall into the
absurdity in this proposition where it would be a different [producer of
the] cause and [experiencer of the] result, because we make no claims whatsoever with regard to the sameness or difference of the actions and their
results, an earlier and later person, and so on.
358
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
.J-*A.-.-o.-;R.-/-*R/-3J.-/,,
}<-i3-.J.-5K-o.-=-*J?-2>.-9A/,, 129 !#
*R/-.J-3A-:)$-!J, {.-&A$-}-KA:A-2.$-$8/-;A/-G%-o.-$&A$-0:A-KA<~3-/, .J-#R-/-*A.-.-o.-;R.-0<-I<-/, .J:A-*R/-3J.-/-;%-}<, L3?0-*J<-&?-=-2gJ/-(R?-i3?-/A, 8J?-?R$?-?-o.-=-i3-0<-.J.-5K-{.&A$-}-KA-i3?-o.-$&A$-;A/-0-=-*J?-0-2>.-9A/-+R,,
$?3-0-/A,
.J-KA<-1%-0R-.%-?J3?-2.$-3A-<A$?,, 129 $
<A$?-0?-$/R.-0-.J:A-KA<-1%-0R-i3?-.%-?J3?-2.$-;A/-0<-3A-<A$??R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
:)A$-gJ/-3,:-w/-=-?R$?-3J.-KA<-<R,, 129 %
?%?-o?-0:A-#J-0-.$-2+R/-0:A-=%-3-2!/-IA-v-2-2&-28A-/A, :)A$gJ/-3,:-.%-w/-3A-w/-?R$?-28A-.%-, :)A$-gJ/-g$-3A-g$-?R$?-28A.%-, .J-28A/-$>J$?-0-PR%?-1/-(.-;R.-3J.-?R$?-28A-.%-, =?-YR$$&A$-,-..-0-=-2gJ/-0-$*A?-.%-2&-28A-0R-:.A-/A-3,:-$&A$-+-5-3A-/?0?-2&R3-w/-:.?-GA?-=%-3-2!/-0<-i3-0<-28$-$R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
359
[509] The second, the refutation of the response that attempts to disprove
this as a fallacy
If you say, “It is in fact a continuum and thus we are not in error,”
Earlier analysis has shown the continuum to be faulty. (129ab)
If you say, “This objection does not apply, because any earlier instant of
self is followed by another instant of that self later, thus comprising a single continuum,” [the answer would be:] if this continuum actually existed
in reality, the objection would indeed not apply; however, earlier analysis
of this continuum [in the line from verse 61a, which starts,] “All dependent phenomena, like Maitreya and Upagupta...” has already shown the
assertion to be faulty that earlier and later instants could form a continuum that is single.
The third, the summary concluding this section
And thus for the self to be either the skandhas or mind is not borne
out by logic. (129c)
That the skandhas or mind could be the self is not borne out by logic,
because that proposition has been invalidated through logic.
The second, the invalidation of their position through scriptures
Furthermore, there is neither an end of the world nor the other
alternatives. (129d)
There are fourteen views the Buddhist scriptures do not teach, namely,
that the world will have an end, not have an end, a combination of both,
or neither; that the world has permanent duration, does not have permanent duration, a combination of both, or neither; that a tathagata passes
away and the benefit he performs is cut off or not, or both or neither; and
whether the body and life force are the same or different. The scriptures of
the Transcendent Conqueror do not teach any of these fourteen, since it
is not possible to claim any of them conclusively.
360
The Moon of Wisdom
.J-=-$=-+J-:)A$-gJ/-/3-2.$-$A-1-1%-0R-=-:)R$-&A%-, .J-.$-2.$-.%?J3?-&/-.%-:)A$-gJ/-;A/-/, 1%-0R-i3?-*J-2-.%-:)A$-0-*A.-GA?:)A$-gJ/-3A-g$-0<-=%-!R/-0<-;%-:I<-=, M%-:.?-GA-:R$-+-1%-0Ri3?-o/-(.-0?-:)A$-gJ/-3,:-w/-.:%-=%-2!/-0-.%-, .J-28A/$>J$?-0-PR%?-1/-3A-:L%-2<-=%-2!/-<A$?-0<-:I<-2-=?-.J-v<3A/-0<-:)A$-gJ/-3,:-w/-=-?R$?-0-3J.-0-!J-3-;A/-0<-;%-HJ.-:.R.0:A-KA<-1%-0R-i3?-.%-?J3?-2.$-+-5-2<-3A-<A$?-?R,,
$?3-0-=-2.$-3J.-3,R%-2-=-1%-0R-3A-$%-2<-:I<-2-.%-, 2.$-3J.3,R%-;%-*R/-3R%?-3A-%R%-2<-,=-2-$*A?, .%-0R-=-.%R?-.%-, [/-!%%-2-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
HR.-GA-i=-:LR<-2.$-3J.-3,R%-2-=,,
.J-5K-%J?-0<-.%R?-i3?-3J.-0<-:I<,, 130 !#
HR.-GA-v<-/-i=-:LR<-0?-2.J/-0-3,R%-2:A-.?-?-(R?-,3?-&.-2.$3J.-0:R-8J?-#$-2}=-IA-2.J/-0-2.$-3J.-0:A-i3-0<-3,R%-2-=-.J-5K-%J?0<-$9$?-?R$?-GA-.%R?-0R-i3?-3J.-0-!J-(.-0<-:I<-+J, 1%-s-2.$;A/-0-.%-2.$-3J.-0<-;%-gR$?-0:A-KA<-<R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
361
If the terms “world” and “self ” were equivalent to the skandhas, such
that these skandhas were the self or a sentient being or the world, it would
be logical to teach that this world is impermanent, since the skandhas arise
and cease; and it would be reasonable to predict that the world would come
to a definitive end, since the continuum of the skandhas would be broken
as a consequence of attaining nirvana; and it would make sense to speak
of the death of the tathagata as being the end of his beneficial activity.
Since, however, this is not so, there is no final end of this world and so on.
Even though there is not, there are opponents who assert such views, but
this does not make it logical to say that the skandhas and mind are a self.
[510] The third, the invalidation of their position through yogic perception, has two parts:
1) The consequence that the skandhas would not appear when the absence
of a self is seen
2) The consequence that the mental afflictions would not be abandoned,
even though the absence of self had been seen
The first of these, the consequence that the skandhas would not appear
when the absence of a self is seen, has two parts:
1) The actual presentation
2) [The refutation of the objection that attempts] to disprove this as
a fallacy
The first of these
When your yogis saw that self does not exist,
Then everything would necessarily cease. (130ab)
According to your view, when yogis see the truth, all phenomena are seen
to be devoid of a self. But this would mean that, when this lack of self associated with the truth of suffering was seen, everything represented by the
skandhas of form and so on [i.e., all phenomena] would necessarily cease
to exist, which would be a nihilistic position, because the five skandhas [as
you say] would be the self and yogis realize there is no self.
362
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
g$-2.$-%R%-/-.J-5K-.J-;A-KA<,,
HR.-GA-?J3?-?3-1%-0R-2.$-3A-:I<,, 130 $%
&A-!J-=?-:V?-GA-:VJ=-0-!R/-0:A-.?-?-2.$-$A-1-1%-0R-i3?-#R-/-=:)$-=, 2.$-3J.-3,R%-5K-$8/-IA?-2+$?-0:A-/%-$A-LJ.-0R:C-*J?-2*A.-=-:)$-0?, 2.$-3J.-3,R%-2-/-/%-$A-LJ.-0R:C-*J?-2-.%-V=-2:A:.-LJ.-0-&/-IA-1%-0R-s-0R-43-3,R%-2?-$9$?-?R$?-.%R?-3J.-.-$-=:I<-8J-/, 2.$-$A-5?-2.$-g$-0-*A.-29%-/?-2.$-3J.-3,R%-2?2.$-%R%-2<-:.R.-/-.J:A-#?-=J/-.J-*A.-GA-KA<-HR.-GA-?J3?-?3-1%-0Ri3?-2.$-;A/-0<-3A-:I<-<R,, $8/-;%-2.$-3J.-gR$?-0:A-;J->J?GA?-3J.-0<-$9A$?-0:A-2.$-.J-g$-0:A-2.$-;A/-/-1%-0R-.%-?J3?2.$-+-3A-<A$?-+J, ;J->J?-GA-;=-;A/-&A%-3-2!$-0:A-KA<, 2.$-3J.gR$?-5K-1%-0R-2.$-3A/-/-.J-3-gR$?-0:A-.?-/:%-1%-0R-2.$-;A/-0-$-=<%-,
The Absence of Personal Self
363
The second, [the refutation of the objection that attempts] to disprove this
as a fallacy
If you say that what stops is belief in a permanent self,
Your “self ” could neither be mind nor could it be skandhas. (130cd)
Opponent’s objection: When the connection between karmic actions and
their results was taught,17 the term “self ” was applied exclusively to the
skandhas. But, when the lack of existence of this [personal] self is seen, the
term [“self ”] would apply to the individual imputed by others18 to be “the
internal agent.” Thus, when the lack of existence of [personal] self is seen,
what is seen is just the lack of this “internal agent” supposedly connected
to the five skandhas bearing the formative influence [of actions previously
committed]. So how could you say this would result in things, i.e., the
skandha of form and the others, ceasing to exist?
Rebuttal: [In your above statement,] you take the term “self ” to refer to
a permanent self [as asserted by non-Buddhists]. You then assert that seeing the lack of existence of this self eliminates the self. But it is precisely
due to these claims that your mental and other skandhas could not be the
self [as you assert it]. If this self, which is seen to not exist by the wisdom
realizing no self, were a permanent self, the mental and other skandhas
could not logically be the self, because they would be objects experienced
by wisdom and could hence not be eliminated. If the skandhas are not the
self when the lack of existence of self is realized, how could they be the self
when this realization is lacking?
364
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
HR.-GA-i=-:LR<-2.$-3J.-3,R%-2-;A?,,
$9$?-?R$?-.J-*A.-gR$?-0<-3A-:I<-8A%-,,
$9$?-=-.3A$?-/?-:)$-KA<-:.R.-($?-?R$?,,
*J-:I<-.J-;A-%R-2R-gR$?-3J.-KA<,, 131
HR.-GA-=$?-GA-i=-:LR<-0-2.$-3J.-3,R%-2-;A?-$9$?-?R$?-1%-0R:C-.J*A.-gR$?-0<-3A-:I<-+J, 1%-0R-=?-$8/-0:A-2.$-3J.-0<-gR$?-0:AKA<, i=-:LR<-0-.J-=-:.R.-($?-?R$?-*R/-3R%?-0-i3?-G%-*J-2<:I<-+J, 1%-0R-.J-;A-<%-$A-%R-2R-$%-9$-$A-2.$-3J.-0<-gR$?-0-3J.-0:AKA<, ($?-?R$?-.%-2.$-v-?R$?-/A-$9$?-?R$?-;=-=-.3A$?-/?:)$-0:A-KA<, .0J<-/-9J:-:V-=-#-L$-.%-4%-lAA-;R.-43-IA?-3%<-0R-3AgR$?-G%-#-L$-$A?-4%-lA-MR%-/-3%<-2-gR$?->A%-.J-=-YJ.-0:%-3A-wR$0-28A/, 2+$?-0:A-2.$-3J.-0<-3,R%-43-IA?-2.$-3J.-3A-gR$?->A%1%-?R$?-=-2.$-+-KA/-&A-=R$-+-2v-8A%-($?-?R$?-G%-wR$-0<-3A:I<-<R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
365
[511] The second, the consequence that the mental afflictions would not
be abandoned, even though the absence of self had been seen
Your yogis would not, by seeing there is no self,
Realize the nature of form and so on,
Because they would fail to fathom the essence of these;
Their focus on forms would activate their thoughts,
Producing desire and so on as a result. (131)
When yogis of your [Vatsiputriya19] tradition saw that there is no self, they
would not realize the very nature of form or any of the other skandhas,
because they would realize the lack of a self which was something other
than the skandhas, [as you yourselves have just claimed].
Desire and other kleshas would also be experienced by these yogis,
because they would not realize the lack of personal self that is the essential
nature of these skandhas. And this is because, on looking at forms and
other objects, desire and other kleshas, as well as views of self in various
forms, would become active.
This is comparable to the case of the anthers of a flower, a hummingbird, and the nectar of the flower. Their mere presence does not provide
the experience of sweetness; whereas, if the hummingbird tastes the nectar, sweetness is experienced, but this does not reverse the craving for it.
Similarly, merely seeing an imputed lack of self is not the realization of “no
self.” The skandhas and so on are still mistakenly seen as a self, so desire
and so on are not corrected.
366
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-KR$?-}-3-2eR.-0-.%-, .J-.$-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
$%-KA<-!R/-0?-1%-0R-2.$-$R-8J?,,
$?%?-0-.J-KA<-1%-0R-2.$-:.R.-/,, 132 !#
#R-2R-&$-=%-5.-3<-LJ.-0?-gR$-$J:A-5.-3?-$/R.-0-3A/-0-$%-$A-KA<-!R/0?-.$J-aR%-%3-V3-9J-$%-?-.$-&A$-2.$-$R-~3-.-;%-.$-0<-eJ?-?-v2-.J-.$-/A-*J-2<-=J/-0:A-1%-0R-s-0R-:.A-.$-#R-/-=-;%-.$-0<-eJ?-?2v:R,, 8J?-1%-0R-i3?-#R-/-2.$-$R-8J?-$?%?-0-.J:A-KA<-1%-0R-2.$+-:.R.-&J-/,
$*A?-0-=, =%-$A-.$R%?-0-1%-0R-2.$-3-;A/, 1%-0R-2.$-;A/-G%5S$?-0-2.$-+-3A-<%-, =J/-0-0R-*J<-=J/-.-3A-<A$?-0-.%-$?3, .%-0R=-2!/-2>.-$*A?,
The Absence of Personal Self
367
The second, the refutation of what is given as a proof, has two parts:
1) The statement of the opponent
2) The refutation of that position
The first of these
The Teacher said, “The skandhas are the self,”
So we assert the skandhas to be the self. (132ab)
Since our [Vatsiputriya] scriptures are valid [cases of cognition], they cannot be invalidated by the reasoning of a logician. And thus it is that,
because our Teacher said, “Any bhikshus or Brahmins who think there is
a self and who would look more closely and correctly at this should look
more closely and correctly at the five skandhas that have been incorporated”; and, because he further stated, “The self is nothing but the skandhas,” he has asserted the skandhas to be the self. If that is what you think,
consider this.
[512] The second, the refutation of that position, includes three parts:
1) That the intention of the scriptures is to state that the skandhas are not
a self
2) That it would be untenable for the collection to [actually] be a self, even
though the skandhas are [called] a self
3) The illogicality of claiming the incorporator to be the incorporated
The first of these, that the intention of the scriptures is to state that the
skandhas are not a self, has two parts:
1) The brief presentation
2) The expanded explanation of that
368
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
.J-/A-1%-=?-$8/-2.$-:$R$-0-!J,,
$9$?-2.$-3A/-?R$?-3.R-$8/-$?%?-KA<-<R,, 132 $%
3.R-:.A?-/A-1%-0R-2.$-;A/-0<-3-2!/-+J, .J-v<-2!/-0-.J-/A-1%-0R=?-,-..-0:A-$8/-KA-/%-$A-#J-0?-2+$?-0:A-2.$-.$$-0-!J, 1%-0R#R-/-=-2.$-+-v:R-8J?-0?-1%-0R-=?-$8/-.-.J-.$-$A?-2.$-3-3,R%-%R8J?-2!/-0:A-KA<, !/-mR2-2.J/-0-=-2vR?-/?-2+$?-0:A-2.$-.$$&A%-, 3-.J.-!/-mR2-2.J/-0-KA/-&A-3-=R$-0<-;%-2.$-v:A-.3A$?-0/A-1%-0R-;A/-&A%-, .J?-/-2&R3-w/-:.?-GA?-G%-2.$-v-=-:)A$-5S$?=-v-2-8J?-$?%?-?R,, :.A-1%-0R-=?-$8/-0:A-2.$-:$R$-0<-:.A?>J?-+J, 3.R-$8/-=?-$9$?-2.$-3-;A/-&J?-?R$?-$?%?-0:A-KA<,
$*A?-0-/A,
$%-KA<-$9$?-5S<-2.$-3A/-:.->J?-G%-,,
3-;A/-:.-LJ.-i3?-3A/-i3->J?-G%-,,
3A/-0<-3.R-$8/-=?-$?%?-.J-;A-KA<,,
3.R<-2!/-1%-0R-2.$-&J?-28J.-3-;A/,, 133
}<-IA-3.R-=?-2!/-0:A-.R/-1%-0R-=?-$8/-0:A-2.$-.$$-0:A-(J.-;A/IA, 1%-0R-2.$-;A/-&J?-28J.-0-3-;A/-+J, $%-$A-KA<-*/-,R?-GA?-#?=J/-0:A-3.R-$8/-=?-$9$?-5S<-2.$-3-;A/-&A%-, :.->J?-G%-2.$3-;A/-=, :.-LJ.-i3?-G%-2.$-3-;A/, i3->J?-G%-2.$-3A/-0<$?%?-0-.J:A-KA<-<R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
369
The first of these
But that is something he taught to refute that self is something other
than skandhas,
Because he taught in other sutras, “Form is not the self,” and so on. (132cd)
The sutras do not teach that the skandhas are a self. They only teach statements resembling this to refute the self imagined by Tirthikas and some
Buddhist groups to be something other existing in isolation from the skandhas, because, when the Buddha said, “The self is nothing other than the
skandhas,” he was teaching that there is no self ever seen [existing] apart
from the skandhas.
To refute the self imagined to exist in the context of the relative truth
and to eliminate the errors involved in an unexamined relative truth, he
taught that the reference point for the view of self is the skandhas. And
that is why the Transcendent Conqueror also taught that the view of self
consists in the views of the transitory collection.20 But these sutras should
be understood to be refuting [merely the notion of ] a self existing apart
from the skandhas, because other sutras teach, “Form is not the self,” and
so on.
The second, the expanded explanation of that
Other sutras teach that form and feeling
Are not a self, nor is discrimination,
Nor karmic formations, nor is the consciousness.
In a word, the Buddha’s teachings do not assert
The position that the skandhas are a self. (133)
There are teachings in early sutras whose point it is to refute the possibility of there being a self distinct from the skandhas, but there is no statement saying, “The skandhas are a self.” [This position is abundantly clear,]
because, in other sutras accepted by the Shravakas, the Buddha taught
[very explicitly] that form and feeling are not a self; that discrimination is
not a self; that karmic formations are not a self; and that consciousness is
not a self either.
370
The Moon of Wisdom
:.A:A-.R/-3.R-}-3?-/A-3-.J.-!/-mR2-+-1%-0R-=-2gJ/-/?-$.$?-0:A2.$-:)A$-v:A-:6B/-!%?-GA-;=-.-2!/-/?-1%-0R-=?-,-..-0:A-2.$2!$-0-;A/-=, 3.R-KA-3?-/A-.J.-.J-.J-#R-/<-?J3?-0-/-$9$?-?R$?G%-2.$-;A/-0-2!$-/?-2gJ/-/?-$.$?-0:A-2.$-.J-:)A$-v:A-;=1%-0R?-*J<-=J/-IA-o-L?-0-=?-*J?-0:%-3A/-0?-1%-0R-2.$-$A-*J-2<=J/-0:A-o<-3J.-/-.J:A-:V?-2:A-2.$-*J-2<-]%-L<-;%-3J.-0?-2.$-/A$9$?-?R$?-=-($?-0-.%-V=-2<-;%-:I<-<R-8J?-.$R%?-0:R,,
$*A?-0-=-5S$?-0-2.$-;A/-0-.$$ 8<-=-.LA2?-2.$-;A/-0-.$$-0$*A?, .%-0R-=, 5S$?-0-m?-?-3-P2, .J:A-KA<-3$R/-?R$?-?-3A-<%-,
.J:A-*J?-%R%-$A-=/-.$$-0-$?3,
The Absence of Personal Self
371
[513.2] So, when the early sutras teach that the skandhas are the reference point with respect to which the views of the transitory collection
impute a self, the context is that of the unexamined relative world and the
whole point of that is to refute a self separate from the skandhas.
The level of understanding presented in the later sutras is from the
examined perspective and represents a way of thinking about this that
applies to the ultimate nature, resulting in a refutation of the notion of
form and the other skandhas as being a self. Based on the analysis applied
here, the skandhas, which are the reference point for the self imputed in
the views of the transitory collection, would be known to not even really
arise from kindred causes and could therefore not themselves be the kindred cause21 of a self, in which case there would be no self as their kindred
result either. And thus, the intention of these sutras is to eliminate there
being a self manifesting as22 [in other words, being identical to] the skandhas of form and so on.
[514.18] The second—that it would be untenable for the collection to
[actually] be a self, even though the skandhas are [called] a self—has two
parts:
1) The refutation of the idea that the collection is a self
2) The supplementary refutation of the idea that the shape of the collection is a self
The first, the refutation of the idea that the collection is a self, has three
sections:
1) That the collection does not exist as a substance
2) That the collection is, therefore, not tenable as a protector and so forth
3) The refutation of the response that attempts to disprove this as a fallacy
372
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
1%-0R-2.$-&J?-2eR.-5K-1%-i3?-GA,,
5S$?-0-;A/-IA-1%-0R:C-%R-2R-3A/,, 134 !#
.0J<-/->A%-i3?-/A-/$?-5=-=R-8J?-2eR.-0-/->A%-$A-5S$?-0-/$?-5=;A/-IA, >A%-$A-%R-2R-/A-3-;A/-+J, ;A/-/->A%-<J-<J-=-;%-/$?-?-:I<-2:AKA<, .0J-.J-28A/-.-1%-0R-i3?-2.$-;A/-/R-8J?-2eR.-0:A-5K-1%-0R-i3?GA-5S$?-0-2.$-+-2eR.-0-;A/-IA, 1%-0R:C-%R-2R-2.$-;A/-0<-2eR.-0-3;A/-+J, ;A/-/-1%-0R-<J-<J-2-;%-2.$-+-:I<-2:A-KA<,
$*A?-0-/A,
3$R/-3A/-:.=-2:3-.0%-0R-*A.-G%-3A/,,
.J-3J.-KA<-.J-5S$?-0-3-;A/-/R,, 134 $%
2.$-/A-3$R/-*A.-.%-.0%-0R-*A.-.-$?%?-=, 2.$-*A.-=J$?-0<-.=2?-/A, 3#?-0-3,R-<A?-,R2-0<-:I<, 8J?-2.$-:.=-2<-$?%?-/5S$?-0-43-0R-m?-?-3J.-0-/A-3$R/-3A/-&A%-, :.=-2:3-.2%-0R-*A.G%-3A/-+J, 5S$?-0-.J-3J.-0:A-KA<-.J?-/-5S$?-0-2.$-3-;A/-/R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
373
The first of these
When the skandhas are called the self, this means the collection;
It does not refer to the skandhas one by one. (134ab)
When one says, for example, that the trees are the forest, it is the collection of trees that is the forest, but it is not the separate trees, because if that
were the case, each tree would be the forest. Similarly, when one says the
skandhas are a self, it is the collection of the skandhas that is being called
a self, not the separate skandhas one by one, since each skandha would
then be the self.
[515] The second, that the collection is, therefore, not tenable as a protector and so forth
The self is not a protector, tamer, or witness—
Since the whole does not exist, it could not be. (134cd)
The self is taught to be a protector and witness in such words as, “When
self is properly tamed, the wise achieve the higher realms.” When speaking of taming a self, there is no substantial existence of the mere collection
[of parts constituting the skandhas] and thus it could not be a protector,
tamer, or witness either. Since the collection does not exist,23 it could not
constitute a self.
374
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-=-.0J-.R/-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
.J-5K-.J-;A-;/-=$-5S$?-$/?-i3?,,
>A%-g-*A.-:I<->A%-g-.%-2.$-35%?,, 135 !#
5S$?-0-5S$?-0-&/-=?-,-3A-..-0?-3$R/-?R$?-5S$?-0-&/-=-:P2-2R~3-/-3-;A/-+J, (R?-?R-?R-2-i3?-=-$&A$-.%-2.$-3A-:,.-}<-2>.9A/-+R,, 1%-0R-2.$-+-5-2-.$-$A-5S$?-0-&/-?R-?R-2-i3?-2.$-;A/-/,
;/-=$-$A-5S$?-=->A%-g-8J?-2eR.-0-.J:A-5K, $9J<-2-?R$?->A%-g-.J:A;/-=$-5S$?-0<-$/?-0-?R-?R-2-i3?->A%-g-*A.-.-:I<-/-.J-;%-3A<A$?-+J, ;/-=$->A%-g-;A/-0-:R$-/?-:$R$-0:A-KA<, .J?-/->A%-g-.%2.$-35%?-0?-1%-0R:C-5S$?-0-&/-IA-?R-?R-2-2.$-+-$-=-:I<,
$*A?-0-/A,
3.R-=?-1%-0R-2gJ/-/?-;A/-$?%?-0,,
.J-KA<-1%-0R-:.?-43-2.$-3-;A/,, 135 $%
1%-0R-:.?-43-/A-2.$-3-;A/-+J, 3.R-=?-1%-0R-i3?-=-2gJ/-/?-2.$.%-%-.%-?J3?-&/-.%-$%-9$-;A/-&J?-2+$?-0<-$?%?-0-.J:A-KA<,
The Absence of Personal Self
375
The third, the refutation of the response that attempts to disprove this as
a fallacy, has two parts:
1) The example
2) The point of this example
The first of these
If its bare collection of parts were the carriage as such,
The carriage and a self would be comparable. (135ab)
If you’re thinking, “Since there is no difference between a collection [of
parts] and the [parts as] a whole, the [self which is the] whole collection of
skandhas exists,” that is not so, as has already been explained above where
it was shown to be untenable to think that discrete phenomena could actually constitute a unity or entity [i.e., self ]. If the whole which is the collection of skandhas said to be a self actually were a self, whatever
constituted the collection of a carriage’s parts would be the carriage itself,
but this does not follow logically, since the parts’ being the carriage is
refuted below. And since this case of the carriage is equivalent to that of a
self, how could that which functioned as the whole collection of skandhas
be a self?
[516] The second, the point of this example
Since the sutras teach the skandhas as reference point,
The mere combination of skandhas could not be self. (135cd)
The mere combination of the skandhas is not the self, because the sutras
teach that self, “I,” sentient being, and person are imputations made with
reference to the skandhas [and are thus not identical with them].
376
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
.LA2?->J-/-.J-$9$?-&/-=-;R.-KA<,,
HR.-=-.J-.$-*A.-2.$-&J?-:I<-IA,,
?J3?-?R$?-5S$?-/A-2.$-*A.-:I<-3A/-+J,,
$%-KA<-.J-.$-=-.LA2?-;R.-3-;A/,, 136
;%-:1%-=R-?R$?-5S$?-43->A%-g-3A/-IA, :1%-=R-?R$?-.LA2?-GA-H.0<-.%-w/-0-/->A%-g:A-3A%-fJ.-0-.J-28A/-.-$9$?-?R$?-5S$?-432.$-3A/-G%-, $9$?-?R$?-2!R.-0:A-.LA2?-43-2.$-;A/-&J-/, 3;A/-0<-,=, .LA2?-.J-/A-$9$?-&/-=-;R.-0:A-KA<-.%-, $9$?-&/.J-.$-*A.-=-2.$-&J?-HR.-GA?-:.R.-0<-:I<-=, .J-v<-/-?J3?-=?R$?-0-3A%-28A-5S$?-0:A-%R-2R-/A-2.$-*A.-3A/-0<-:I<-+J, $%-KA<-.J.$-=-.LA2?-;R.-0-3A/-0:A-KA<-<R,,
$?3-0-=-.%R?-.%-, LJ.-0R-3J.-0:A-=?-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
=J/-0R-<%-*A.-=J/-$&A$-<A$?-.%R?-3A/,,
.J-v-/-=?-LJ.-0R-$&A$-*A.-:I<,, 137 !#
*J-2<-=J/-0R-2.$-<%-.%-, *J-2<-=J/-0-]%-L:A-1%-0R-i3?-GA-.%R?-0R$&A$-+-3A-<A$?-+J, <A$?-0-.J-v<-/-=?-.%-LJ.-0R-$&A$-*A.-.-:I<2?-:L%-2-o<-L?-GA-$9$?-.%-23-0-.%-m-3#/-G%-$&A$-0<-:I<2:A-KA<,
The Absence of Personal Self
377
The second, the supplementary refutation of the idea that the shape of the
collection is a self
You may say, “It’s the shape,” because that exists with a form,
And these would be what you would be calling the self;
But then the collection of skandhas which are mental
Would not be a self, since none of these has a shape. (136)
You may say, “Well then, the mere collection of the wheels and so on is not
the carriage, but if we have something which includes within it the specific shapes of the wheels and so on, we find a name, such as ‘carriage,’ for
it; and similarly, the mere collection of form and the other skandhas is not
a self, but the actual shape connected with form and so on are a self ”; this
does not follow, because shapes exist in connection with that which has
form. Furthermore, opponents assert that which takes some form to be a
self, but, were that the case, the factors comprising the collection of four
[operations providing the names of things] referred to as “the namingskandhas,”24 such as [primary] mind and so on, would not be the self,
because they have no shape.
[517] The third, the illogicality of claiming the incorporator to be the
incorporated, has two parts:
1) The actual presentation
2) The refutation of products that have no agent
The first of these
For incorporator and what it incorporates to be the same thing
Is not sound logic because, if it were, the agent and product would be
the same. (137ab)
It is illogical to claim that the self, which is [being thought of as] the incorporator, and the skandhas incorporated are the same thing, because, in that
kind of logic, the agent and the product of the action would be the same;
and thus, any form produced—such as a vase—and that which serves as
its cause—a potter—would be the same.
378
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
LJ.-0R-3J.-=?-;R.-~3-]R-;A/-/,,
3-;A/-$%-KA<-LJ.-0R-3J.-=?-3J.,, 137 $%
*J-2<-=J/-0<-LJ.-0R-/A-:$:-;%-3J.-=, *J-2<-]%-L:A-=?-$9$??R$?-*J<-=J/-:.?-43-;R.-~3-]R?-?J3?-0-;A/-/-.J-v<-3-;A/-+J, $%KA<-LJ.-0R-o-3J.-/-=?-G%-3J.-0<-:I<-2:A-KA<-<R,,
$?3-0-/A,
$%-KA<-,2-0?-2.$-.J-?-(-3J,,
_%-.%-i3->J?-/3-3#:-8J?-L-2,,
#3?-S$-.%-/A-3A$-?R$?-<J$-0-;A,,
gJ/-S$-.$-=-2gJ/-/?-*J<-2!/-8A%-,, 138
?J3?-.%-?J3?-L%-(R?-i3?-*J<-29%-/?,,
%J?-$?%?-.J-KA<-.J-/A-.J-i3?-.%-,,
.J-*A.-3-;A/-5S$?-43-*A.-3A/-+J,,
.J-KA<-%<-:6B/-]R-.J-i3?-=-3A/,, 139
$%-KA<-,2-0?-3.R-#J-=?, o=-0R-(J/-0R-*J?-2-$%-9$-.J-/A-#3?-S$-.%-,
<J$-0:A-*J-3(J.-S$-.%-, ;A.-GA-*J-2<-o-2-2&R-2o.-.R-8J?-2.$-.J-?(-3J-_%-.%-i3->J?-/3-3#:-8J?-L-2-#3?-S$-.%-/A-3A$-?R$?-/?-;A.GA-2<-:.?-+J-<J$-0:A-gJ/-S$-.$-=-2gJ/-/?-*J-2<-2!/-+J, $9$??R$?-;=-S$-=-;A.-2.J-2:A-*J-o-S$ ;A.-3A-2.J-2:A-*J-o-S$-.%-, 2+%~R3?-GA-*J-o-S$-!J-2&R-2o.-=-2gJ/-0:A-?J3?-.%-?J3?-L%-$A-(R?-i3?-
The Absence of Personal Self
379
The second, the refutation of products that have no agent
If you think, “There is no agent, there are just products,”
Not so! Where there is no agent, there is no product. (137cd)
If you think, “There is no incorporating agent whatsoever, but there is a
product entailing incorporation in that this product is the mere combination of form and so on,” that is not the way it is, because, without the
agent serving as the cause, there would be no product.
[518] The third,25 the imputation relative to the person
The Sage taught “self ” is [an imputation] related
To the six capacities — earth, water and fire,
Air, consciousness, space — and the six supports
For contact, namely, the eye and the other senses, (138)
In clearly teaching it 26 comes from apprehending
The phenomena of mind and mental events.
And thus it is not identical with these,
And yet it is not their whole collection either;
And thus the idea of self does not apply. (139)
In a sutra27 the Mighty One said, “Great King, the individual or person is
the six capacities (dhatus), the six doors of perception (ayatanas) enabling
contact, and the eighteen activities of mind.”
He clearly taught that the self is [an imputation] related to the six elements:28 earth, water, fire, air, consciousness, and space; and to the six supports for contact, which include the five senses and rational mind. This is
because he distinctly taught that what are imputed to be a self are the operative phenomena comprising primary mind and mental factors—which
are based on the eighteen activities of mind: the six activities of a happy
mind, the six of an unhappy mind, and the six of indifference [all of which
380
The Moon of Wisdom
*J-2<-29%-/?-2.$-+-2+$?-?R-8J?-%J?-0<-$?%?-0-.J:A-KA<, 2.$.J-/A-(R?-.J-i3?-.%-$8/-3A/-0:A-.J-*A.-3-;A/-=, .J-.$-5S$?-43-*A.G%-3-;A/-+J, (R?-.J-.$-2.$-+-3A-<%-2-.J:A-KA<-(R?-.J-i3?-=-%<-:6B/0:A-]R-.J-<A$?-0-3A/-/R,, .J?-/-1%-0R-.%-.J-=?-$8/-.-%<-:6B/-IA-;=3-.3A$?-0?-i=-:LR<-0?-2.$-.%-2.$-$A-;R.-0-3A/-0<->J?-/?-1%0R-s:A-o.-2&.-/?-=J/-0-3J.-0<-M%-:.?-?-:I<-2?-2.$-3J.-0<.J.-0-:.A-(J?-36K?-?R,,
$*A?-0-=-:VJ=-3J.-%%-$*J/-.-3A-<A$?-0-.%-, .J-.0J:A-|R-/?-2?=-2$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
2.$-3J.-gR$?-5K-g$-0:A-2.$-%R%-8A%-,,
:.A-/A-%<-:6B/-gJ/-.:%-3A-:.R.-0,,
.J-KA<-2.$-3J.->J?-0?-2.$-v-2,,
.JA?-G%-:LA/-8J?-5-2->A/-+-35<,, 140
2.$-1%-$&A$-+-:6B/-&A%-KA?-3,R%-=3-,R2-0-/-;=-&/-%%?->A%-;=3-%%?-0<-:.R.-=, ;=-3-;A/-0-3-!J$?-0:A-2.$-%%?-0<-5-2:A3%-2!<-2-$%-$A-KR$?-.J-v<-/-)A-YA.-.-1%-0R-o/-3-(.-0-.J-YA.-.-%<:6B/-:)$-!J, 2.$-:6B/-IA-$8A-2.$-2^R$-0<-3-L?-0:A-KA<-+J, 1%0R-.J-*A.-2.$-;A/-0:A-KA<-8J?-2>.-0-/A, i=-:LR<-0?-2.$-3J.-gR$?5K-1%-
The Absence of Personal Self
381
occur in relation to] the six objects (forms and so forth). Self is not identical with29 [each of ] these phenomena [separately], and yet it is not their
whole collection either. These phenomena could, therefore, not be a self
and to conceive of them as being one is illogical.
Thus, no objective grounding for the idea of “I” is ever observed,
whether it be the skandhas or something other than them. For this reason,
yogis understand that neither “I” nor “mine” exists. This in turn enables
them to cut the continuum of the five skandhas and, in no longer incorporating these, to attain nirvana. This is the great beauty of this analysis
of the absence of self.
[519] The second, a summary concluding this section by stating the consequence [that those who hold the Buddhist views just refuted30] do not
abandon the view of self; this has two parts:
1) The breach of logic involved in there being no connection between the
factor to be abandoned and its remedy
2) Clarifying this point through an example
The first of these
“On realizing no self, clinging to permanent self is relinquished,” you say;
But you do not even assert such a self to be the basis for notions of “I.”
And therefore, to say that comprehending the lack of existence of such a self
Finally brings the view of self to an end, is quite an amazing statement! (140)
There are those who assert that the one who conceives of “I” and the skandhas as being one and then later achieves the path of seeing has eliminated
the subject but not its object. This corresponds to the position of the Sammitiyas, who claim that, [when the lack of self is realized,] what is eliminated is the [imputed] self posited by the Tirthikas, not its reference point,
[the skandhas]. For as long as this is maintained, the continuum of the
skandhas will remain uninterrupted. And for as long as that is so, the idea
of an “I” is maintained, because one has not corrected the [instinctive] idea
of self, which is the very basis of ego clinging; and that in turn is because
one [still has the notion], “The skandhas are me.”
382
The Moon of Wisdom
0R-=?-.R/-$8/-0:A-g$-0:A-2.$-3J.->J?-0?-1%-0R:C-;=-&/-IA-2.$-+v-2:A-?-2R/-.JA?-G%-:LA/-&J?-5-2->A/-+-35<-+J, 1/-5/-:VJ=-03J.-0:A-KA<-+J, HR.-GA?-1%-0R-=?-.R/-$8/-.-2+$?-0:A-g$-0:A-2.$%R%-8A%-3J.-0<-:)A$-gJ/-$%-$A?-_R3-;%-1%-0R-=?-.R/-$8/-g$-0:A2.$-:.A-/A-:)A$-gJ/-0-i3?-GA-%<-:6B/-IA-gJ/-.:%-3A-:.R.-0?-:)A$gJ/-0?-%<-:6B/-IA-gJ/-.-I<-0:A-1%-0R-=-2.$-v-wR$-0<-3A-/?-0-.J:AKA<-<R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
<%-HA3-lA$-1$-4=-$/?-3,R%-28A/-.,,
:.A-/-\%-(J/-3J.-&J?-.R$?-2?=-+J,,
4=-IA-:)A$?-0:%-%R%-2<-LJ.-0-/A,,
GJ-3-$8/-IA-$/3-0R<-:I<-*A.-.R,, 141
.0J<-/-:$:-8A$-$A?-<%-HA3-IA-lA$-1$-/-4=-$/?-0-3,R%-28A/-.-:.A/-\%-0R-(J-3J.-&J?-4=-IA-:)A$?-0:A-.R$?-0-2?=-+J-4=-IA-:)A$?0:%-%R%-2<-LJ.-0-/A-GJ-3-$8/-IA-$/3-0R<-+J-.JR.-w/-.$-$A-28.-$.GA-$/?-?-:I<-2-*A.-.R-!J, .J-v<-4=-3J.-.R-8J?-2$-1J2?-0<-$/?0:A-*J?-2-.J-=-4=-IA?-9A/-/?-3-<%-2<-LJ.-0-28A/-g$-2.$-wR$-G%1%-0R:C-;=-&/-IA-2.$-v-3A-wR$-0?-:#R<-2-*A.-.-=?-*R/-IA?-:#R<2<-:I<-<R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
383
In light of this explanation, to say that yogis and yoginis, on realizing
there is no self, comprehend that there is no [imputed] self that could be
permanent and have an existence extraneous to the skandhas and thereby
utterly relinquish [the instinctive notion of “I,” namely] the view of self
that derives from experiencing the skandhas, is quite an amazing statement, since the two are not connected.31
Another reason for saying your statement is quite amazing is that for
you [realizing no self means] giving up the permanent self imputed [in the
context of philosophical dialectic] to exist as a fact extraneous to the skandhas, and yet even you do not assert this permanent self with objective existence separate from the skandhas, which is of no concern to beings in their
natural setting, to be the basis for their [instinctive] notion of “me.” So
[realizing there is no self separate from the skandhas] could not correct the
[instinctive] view of self as being the skandhas, a view that is the basic ingredient of the notion of “I” entertained by beings in the world.
[521] The second, clarifying this point through an example
It would be like saying that someone who sees that snakes
Are nesting in a crack in a wall of their home
Could avoid any panic and cast off their fear of the snakes
By saying, “At least no elephants live in there!”
I’m sorry, but people would find this rather amusing. (141)
Take, for example, someone who has discovered that a hole in one of the
walls of their home is a snake’s nest and, to avoid panicking and to get rid
of their fear of the snakes, says, “Well, at least there are no elephants in
there!”
I’m sorry, but when others with a little common sense got word of this,
they would find it rather amusing. And it would definitely not be the way
to get rid of the snakes so that the residents could rest assured they were
gone.
This is comparable to correcting the notion of there being a permanent
self but not correcting the view of self that comes about in connection with
experience of the skandhas, as a result of which one will continue to circle
in samsara due to karma and kleshas.
384
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
1%-0R<-2.$-;R.-3-;A/-2.$-=-;%-,,
1%-0R-.J-i3?-;R.-3A/-$%-KA<-:.A<,,
$8/-*A.-;R.-/-gR$-0-:.A<-:I<-/,,
$8/-*A.-.J-3J.-.J-KA<-:.A-gR$-0:R,, 142
gJ/-1%-0R<-2.$-2gJ/-0<-;R.-0-3-;A/-&A%-, gJ/-2.$-=-;%-1%-0R-.Ji3?-2gJ/-0<-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, $%-$A-KA<-:.A<-3#<-$8R%-.%-8R-v<$8/-*A.-;R.-/-gJ/-2gJ/-0:A-.%R?-0R<-gR$-0-:.A<-:I<-/, 2.$-.%1%-0R-$8/-*A.-.-3J.-0?, .J:A-KA<-.J-.$-=-gJ/-2gJ/-0-:.A-gR$-0?2+$?-0:R,,
28A-0-/A,
2.$-/A-$9$?-w/-3A-:.R.-$%-KA<-2.$,
;R.-3A/-.J-KA<-w/-.R/-.R<-2-3J.,,
$8/-/-$/$-w/-$8/-3A/-$9$?-w/-/,,
2.$-/A-$9$?-=?-.J-*A.-$8/-*A.-3J.,, 143
2.$-/A-$9$?-?R$?-1%-0R-i3?-.%-w/-0<-3A-:.R.-.J, $%-$A-KA<2.$-;R.-0-3A/-8A%-.J:A-KA<, 2.$-1%-w/-0:A-.R/-.R<-2-3J.-.J, w/0:A-.R/-;%-$8/-;A/-/-z?-LA/-$/$-.%-w/-/R-8J?-L-2-v-2:3, $8/3A/-0-z?-LA/-$9$?-.%-w/-&J?-0-v<-/-;%-2.$-/A-$9$?-?R$?-1%0R-=?-.J-*A.-.%-$8/-*A.-3J.-0<-}<-2>.-9A/-0:A-KA<,
The Absence of Personal Self
385
[522] The third, the refutation of a self that is supported upon or is the
support for the skandhas
The self does not exist with the skandhas as base,
Nor do the skandhas exist with the self as the base.
If they basically differed, they could be thought of like this;
Because they don’t, they cannot be thought of like this. (142)
The self does not exist as the supported factor with the skandhas as its support, nor do the skandhas exist as the supported factor with the self as their
support. The reason for this is, if they were different things, like a bowl
and some yogurt, they could be thought of as support and what is supported, but self and the skandhas are not different, so “support and supported” here are just conceptual imputations.
The fourth, the refutation of a self possessing the skandhas
We do not assert that the self possesses a body,
Since there is no self and thus no owner relation
Which would either be one of difference, like owning a cow,
Or one without difference, like ownership of the body,
But the self and the body are neither the same nor different. (143)
We do not assert that the self possesses the body32 or any other skandha,
because there is no existent self. And thus, there is no owner relationship
between a self and the skandhas, because a relationship of possession would
either be one where there is a difference [between owner and belonging]
as in a case like that of Devadatta owning a cow; or it would be one where
there is no difference, like Devadatta “having”33 a body, but it has already
been explained that the self could neither be the same as nor different from
the body or any of the other skandhas.
386
The Moon of Wisdom
s-0-=-:)A$-v:A-.3A$?-i3-=-=R$-0<-:)$-5=-IA-P%?-2!/, .J-;J>J?-GA-hR-eJ?-:)R3?-5=-=%-.%-.<-2-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
$9$?-2.$-3-;A/-2.$-/A-$9$?-w/-3A/,,
$9$?-=-2.$-3J.-2.$-=:%-$9$?-;R.-3A/,,
.J-v<-i3-28A<-1%-!/->J?-L-!J,,
.J-.$-2.$-+-v-2-*A-><-:.R.,, 144
$9$?-/A-2.$-3-;A/-+J, 2.$-.%-35/-*A.-3A-3,/-&A%-L-LJ.-$&A$-+,=-2:A-KA<, *J?-2-=-.R->=-v<-2.$-/A-$9$?-.%-w/-0-;%-3A/-+J,
.J-.$-.J-*A.-.%-$8/-.-3J.-0:A-KA<, /$?-/-?J%-$J-v<-gJ/-$9$?-=2.$-2gJ/-0<-eJ?-?-8$?-+J-$/?-0-;%-3J.-&A%-, <A-$%?-&/-=->A%5S$?-v<-gJ/-2.$-=-;%-$9$?-?R$?-.2%-2+<-L<-;R.-0-3A/-+J, .J.$-=-$8/-*A.-3J.-0:A-KA<, 5=-.J-v<-i3-28A:A-|R-/?-3A%-$8A:A-1%-0R!/-G%-2.$-3J.-0<->J?-0<-L-!J, 1%-s-2.$-$A?-.2J/-0-=-:)A$v?-.J-=?-2^R$-/?-:6B/-!%?-GA-i3-0-28A-28A?-29%-2-.J-.$-/A-2.$+-v-2:3-:)A$-v-*A-><-:.R.-.R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
387
The fifth, a summary of the topics included in these refutations providing
the remedy for the views of the transitory collection; this has two parts:
1) A list of the misconceptions entertained regarding the object observed
and the idea one has about it in the context of the views of the transitory collection34
2) How these views are destroyed by the wisdom vajra, as related in the
scriptures
The first of these
The body is not the self nor does self have a body;
The self is not based on the body or body on self.
Know that these four relations apply to all skandhas;
So these are considered the twenty views of self. (144)
[523] The body is not the self, because its definition does not fit with that
of the self and because, [if body and self were the same,] the absurd consequence would be that the performer of an action and the action performed would be the same.
The self does not possess the body, like a person having a crystal, because
they are neither the same as nor different from each other.
The body is not a supporting framework for the self as a forest is a supporting environment for a lion, because it does not remain.
Nor is the self the support for the bodily form and the other skandhas, where these would be the factors thereby empowered, as with a
snowy mountain and its collection of trees, because they are not differing entities.
One must know that there is no self related in any of these four ways to
any of the skandhas which are bases for naming35 either.
So these are the four ways of looking at how each of the five skandhas
is devoid of a self, thus correcting these views and destroying them. And
that is why there are considered to be twenty transitory views, i.e., views
of self.
388
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
v-<A-2.$-3J.-gR$?-0:A-hR-eJ-;A?,,
2&R3-2.$-$%-.%-z/-&A$-:)A$-:I<-2,,
:)A$-5S$?-v-<A-z/-!$-=-$/?-0,,
lJJ-3R-3,R-2<-I<-0-:.A-.$-$R,, 145
:)A$-v:A-<A-/A-2.$-3J.-gR$?-0:A-;J->J?-hR-eJ-;A?-2&R3-0-/-.3A$?-;=2.$-$%-.%-z/-&A$-:)A$-0<-:I<-2-;=-&/-:)A$-5S$?-=-v-2:A-<A-2R*R/-3R%?-GA-V$-hR-:#R<-2-,R$-3J.-/?-:1J=-2?-.0%?-#3?-$?3-.3,R-2-z/-!$-=-$/?-0-3-<A$-0:A-$?J<-IA-?-$8A-=?-,R/-0-lJ-3R-3,R2<-I<-0-*A->-:.A-.$-$R,,
$*A?-0-=-KR$?-}-3-2eR.-0-.%-, .J-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
#-&A$-.J-*A.-$8/-*A.-g$-3A-g$,
=-?R$?-2eR.-3J.-$%-9$-m?-;R.-:.R.,,
i3->J?-S$-$A->J?-L<-.J-:.R.-&A%-,,
.J-/A-%<-:6B/-$8A<-;%-:.R.-0-;A/,, 146
$%-9$-/A-1%-0R-=?-$8/-.-3A-:,.-.J, 1%-0R-=?-3-$+R$?-0<-$%9$-:)A$-gJ/-0?-3-P2-0:A-KA<, 1%-0R:C-<%-28A/-G%-3-;A/-+J-*J-:)A$+-,=-2:A-KA<, .J?-/-2.$-/A-1%-0R-=?-.J-*A.-.%-$8/-*A.-.-2eR.-.3J.-.R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
389
[525] The second, how these views are destroyed by the wisdom vajra, as
related in the scriptures
When the vajralike realization of no self
Destroys these mountains of views, that is when self
And the lofty peaks of the transitory collection—
Those massive, mountainous notions—vanish together. (145)
When the vajra of wisdom, which realizes that there is no self, destroys the
mountains of transitory views, that is, when the “self ” which was the object
[of these views] and the subject observing it, namely, the views per se of
the transitory collection—which are like the mountains of rocky kleshas
whose twenty ominous peaks rise from the golden base of ignorance and
whose massive bulk towers up through the three realms of samsara from
time immemorial—are destroyed simultaneously.
The second, the refutation of a self that is inexpressible in terms of being
the same as or different from the skandhas; this has two parts:
1) The statement of the opponent
2) The refutation of that
The first of these
Some assert an inexpressible person
Who exists substantially but is not the same
As the skandhas or different from them, not permanent
And not impermanent, a knowable object
For the six forms of consciousness, and that it forms
The basis for conceiving of an “I.” (146)
[The opponent here,] the Vatsiputriyas, state that it would not be defensible to say the person is something different from the skandhas, because
there is nothing verifiably existing as a person in the world other than the
skandhas. Nor is the self the same in makeup as the skandhas, because it
would then follow that it is subject to arising and ceasing. They say the self
is, therefore, inexpressible as being either the same as or different from the
skandhas.
390
The Moon of Wisdom
.J-v<-g$-3A-g$-=-?R$?-0<-;%-2eR.-.-3J.-.J-g$-(.-.-:I<-2:A-KA<,
.J-v:A-$%-9$-m?-?-;R.-0<-:.R.-.J, .J-=-LJ.-0R-.%-9-0R-*A.-.-2eR.0:A-KA<-.%-, :#R<-:.?-2&%-,<-.%-:VJ=-0-&/-;A/-0:A-KA<, $%9$-.J-<%-$A-%R-2R?->J?-L-3A/-IA, $9$?-?R$?-*J-3(J.-S$-]R:A-;=-.L?-0:A-|R-/?-.J->J?-0<-LJ.-0?-i3->J?-S$-$A->J?-L<-$%-9$-.J-:.R.&A%-, .J-/A-:)A$-gJ/-IA-%<-:6B/-IA-$8A:3-;=-.-;%-:.R.-0-;A/-/R,,
$*A?-0-=, 2.$-m?-P2-.$$ 2+$?-;R.-.-2!/, .%R?-0R:C-(R?3J.-0?-3-P2-0<-2!/-0-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
$%-KA<-$9$?-=?-?J3?-2eR.-3J.-3A-gR$?,,
.%R?-;R.-2eR.-3J.-gR$?-0-3-;A/-*A.,,
$=-+J-2.$-:$:-.%R?-0R<-P2-I<-/,,
?J3?-v<-P2-.%R?-2eR.-.-3J.-3A-:I<,, 147
m?-?-P2-/-2eR.-.-3J.-0<-3A-<A$?-+J, $%-$A-KA<-$9$?-=?-?J3?-.J*A.-.%-$8/-.-2eR.-3J.-.-3A-gR$?-0-v<-$%-.%R?-0R<-;R.-0-/A, .J-*A..%-$8/-0<-2eR.-3J.-.-gR$?-0-3-;A/-0-*A.-.J, m?-?-P2-/-.J-$*A?$%-<%-=?-:.:-2-3A/-0:A-KA<, $=-+J-2.$-:$:-m?-GA-.%R?-0R<-P20<-:I<-/-?J3?-.%-$9$?-v<-P2-0:A-.%R?-0R-&/-IA?-H2-0?-.J-*A..%-$8/-.-2eR.-.-3J.-0<-3A-:I<-<R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
391
Continuing in the same vein, they say it is inexpressible as being permanent or impermanent, because [to express it as being either would entail
falling into the extreme of either] eternalism or nihilism. This school
asserts such a person to exist substantially, because they claim it to be an
agent36 and an experiencer, and because they say it is what connects samsara and its bondage with nirvana and its liberation.37
They say this person is not actually perceptible itself 38 but enables
knowledge of itself as an object of the discursive processes belonging to the
six doors of perception (ayatanas) related to forms, sounds, and so on. They
therefore assert the person to be an object of knowledge perceptible by all
six forms of consciousness.39 They, furthermore, assert it to constitute the
basis, i.e., object, of a worldly person’s conception of “I.”
[526] The second, the refutation of that, has three parts:
1) The refutation of the possibility that this self could be substantially existent
2) The presentation of self as an imputation
3) The presentation of the impossibility of there being a self existing, due
to its lacking the qualities of a thing
The first of these
Just as mind is not thought to be inexpressible in relation to body,
Functional things, which exist, are not construed to be inexpressible.
And that is why, if there were a self existing as a functional thing,
It would be like mind in being a thing and would not be
inexpressible. (147)
It is not logical for something existing substantially to be inexpressible. Just
as mind cannot be considered inexpressible in terms of being the same as
or different from the body, similarly, any other thing (i.e., functional
entity) cannot be considered inexpressible in terms of sameness and difference, because anything existing substantially would not transcend being
either the one or the other. If some self were to exist as a substantially constituted thing, it would necessarily be comparable to any other thing and,
like mind in relation to body, its being the same as or different from other
things would not be inexpressible.
392
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
$%-KA<-HR.-23-.%R?-0R<-3-P2-0:A,,
%R-2R-$9$?-?R$?-=?-2eR.-3J.-:I<-2?,,
2.$-$%-1%-0R-=?-2eR.-3J.-:I<-+J,,
<%-$A?-;R.-0<-P2-0<-gR$?-3A-L,, 148
.J-*A.-.%-$8/-.-2eR.-.-3J.-/-2+$?-;R.-;A/-+J, $%-$A-KA<-HR.-23-0.%R?-0R<-3-P2-0:A-2+$?-;R.-43-;A/-=, o-35/-.J?-23-0:A-%R-2R$9$?-?R$?-=?-.J-*A.-.%-$8/-0<-2eR.-.-3J.-0<-:I<-2?-.J-28A/-.2.$-$%-1%-0R-=?-.J-*A.-.%-$8/-0<-2eR.-3J.-.-:I<-+J, 2.$-<%-$A%R-2R-*A.-GA?-m?-?-;R.-0<-:P2-0<-3A-L-2<-2+$?-;R.-.-gR$?-0:A-KA<,
$?3-0-/A,
HR.-GA-i3->J?-<%-2.$-=?-$8/-/A,,
3A-:.R.-$9$?-?R$?-=?-$8/-.%R?-:.R.-&A%-,,
.%R?-=-i3-0-.J-$*A?-3,R%-:I<-2,,
.J-KA<-2.$-3J.-.%R?-(R?-.%-V=-KA<,, 149
HR.-GA-2.$-m?-;R.-i3->J?-<%-$A-2.$-*A.-=?-$8/-/A-3A/-0<-:.R.-=,
$9$?-?R$?-=?-$8/-IA-.%R?-0R<-:.R.-0-v<-2.$-/A-<%-=?-$8/3A/-&A%-, $8/-=?-,-..-0<-:I<-2:%-3-;A/-/R,, .J?-/-2.$-/A-m??-3J.-.J, .%R?-0R:C-(R?-.%-V=-2:A-KA<-+J, m?-;R.-GA-.%R?-0R-=-.J-.%$8/-i3-0-.J-$*A?-?-3,R%-2<-:I<-2-.J:A-KA<-23-?R$?-28A/-/R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
393
[527] The second, the presentation of self as an imputation
For you, a vase does not exist as a thing:
Its essence cannot be expressed with respect to its form.
So, if self cannot be expressed in terms of the skandhas,
It cannot be understood to exist per se. (148)
Anything inexpressible in terms of sameness or difference is an imputation. Thus, for you, “vase” does not exist as a thing but is a mere imputation. The reason is, its essential makeup would be inexpressible as being
the same as or different from its form and so forth. And along these same
lines, a self would be inexpressible as being the same as or different from
the skandhas, because the self cannot be established as existing per se,40 that
is to say, substantially, and must therefore be understood to be an imputation.
The third, the impossibility of there being a self existing, due to its lacking the qualities of a thing
Consciousness for you is not distinct from its own nature,
And yet you assert it to be a thing which differs from form and so forth.
A functional thing is observed to exhibit both of these properties;
And therefore there is no self, since it lacks these qualities of a thing. (149)
You assert that consciousness, a substantially existent self, is not something
distinct or different from its own nature. And yet, you assert it to be a thing
that is different from forms and so forth. But, the way [you state your full
position] the self would not be different from itself, but it would not be
different from what is other than itself either. Thus, a self could not exist
substantially, because it lacks the qualities of a thing, since things existing
substantially, such as vases and so on, are observed to exhibit these two
properties of sameness and difference.
394
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
.J-KA<-%<-:6B/-gJ/-/A-.%R?-0R-3A/,,
1%-=?-$8/-3A/-1%-0R:C-%R-2R-3A/,,
1%-0R-gJ/-3A/-:.A-/A-.J-w/-3A/,, 150 !#$
.J.-0-/-$%-9$-m?-;R.-3A-<A$?-0-.J:A-KA<-%<-:6B/-IA-gJ/-/3-;=-/A$8A$?-/-.J-.%-$8/-.-3J.-0:A-.%R?-0R-m?-;R.-3A/-+J, .J-1%-0R-=?$8/-;%-3A/-=, 1%-0R:C-%R-2R-;%-3A/-8A%-1%-0R-i3?-gJ/-?-;%-3A/-=,
2.$-:.A-/A-1%-0R-.J-=-w/-0-;%-3A/-/R,,
$?3-0-=-3.R<-2!/, .0J-.R/-IA-|R-/?-o?-0<-2>., .J?-<A$?-&/$8/-,3?-&.-G%-2+$?-0-43-.-2!/-0-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
:.A-/A-1%-0R-i3?-2gJ/-:P2-0<-:I<,, 150 %
PA$?-0-.-3?-$%-9$-:$R$-/, &A-$%-9$-.J-$+/-3J.-0-8A$-$3-8J-/,
)A-v<-:.A-=-2gJ/-/?-:.A-:L%-8J?-0-43-!/-mR2-2.J/-0:A-i3-$8$-3(.-0:A-(J.-.-2eR.-/-o-3J.-?R$?-=?-*J-2-3A/-0-28A/-2.$-=-.J.{2?-?:%-)A-{.-2>.-0:A-*R/-2&?-GA-$%-9$-m?-;R.-2?=-/?-2.$:.A-/A-1%-0R-i3?-=-2gJ/-/?-$.$?-0-.J-43-IA?-:P2-0<-:I<-+J, ,~.-$/?-0<-L-2:A-(J.-.-2.$-$A-,-~.-/A-.J-43-=-:)A$-gJ/-0-.$-LJ.0<-3,R%-2:A-KA<,
The Absence of Personal Self
395
[528] The third, a concluding summary of the refutation of self 41
The base for conceiving of “I” is, thus, not a thing:
Not different from the skandhas nor in essence the same,
Not the support for the skandhas and not their possessor; (150a-c)
[As we have seen], when examined, it proves to be untenable for the person to exist substantially, and this destroys the base, i.e., reference point,
for conceiving of an “I.” In not exhibiting sameness and difference, it does
not have the substantial existence of a thing: it is not different from the
skandhas, nor is it the same in essence as the skandhas; it is not a basis on
which the skandhas rest, nor does this “self ” possess the skandhas.
The third,42 a presentation of what follows from this refutation, namely,
that “self ” is just an imputation relative to the person; this has three sections:
1) The brief presentation
2) The expanded explanation using an example and its point
3) That everything else of the same type is therefore a mere imputation
as well
The first of these
This self is only established with reference to skandhas. (150d)
Some may say, “If the person has been refuted through many logical arguments, does that mean it has never existed in any way?”
[In answer to that:] When we state, “This arises with reference to that,”
this is specified in order to avoid totally invalidating, or annihilating, what
is set forth as the relative truth. It does not mean there is production without causes and so forth.
In the context of analyzing for a self, we [first] eliminate the possibility
of there being a substantially existent person on the grounds of the errors
involved in that position, as just delineated. As a result, the “self ” proves
to be a mere imputation applied with reference to the skandhas, since it is
now evident that the term “self ” is a mere linguistic device employed in
the world in conformity with convention.
396
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-35S/-LJ.-GA-.0J-.%-, .0J?-35S/-0:A-.R/-$*A?, .%-0R-=2!/-2>.-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
>A%-g-<%-;/-=$-=?-$8/-:.R.-3A/,,
$8/-3A/-3-;A/-.J-w/-;%-3A/-8A%-,,
;/-=$-=-3A/-;/-=$-.$-.J<-3A/,,
:.?-0-43-3A/-.LA2?-3A/-)A-28A/-/R,, 151
>A%-g-<%-$A-;/-=$-$9J<-2-?R$?-=?-$8/-.-:.R.-0-3-;A/-+J, .J-.$=?-=R$?-?-3-3,R%-2:A-KA<, $8/-3A/-0:%-3-;A/-+J, .J-v<-/-L-LJ.$&A$-+-:I<-8A%-, ;/-=$-<J-<J-2-=->A%-g-;R.-0<-,=-2:A-KA<, ;/=$-.J-.$-.%-w/-0-;%-3A/-8A%-!J, .J-*A.-.%-$8/-.-3J.-0?-w/-0:A.R/-3J.-0:A-KA<, ;/-=$-=->A%-g-2gJ/-0:%-3A/-=, ;/-=$-.$->A%g-.J<-2gJ/-0-;%-3A/-+J-$8/-.-3J.-0:A-KA<, ;/-=$-:.?-0-43-3A/-+J*R/-}<-2>.-9A/-0:A-KA<, .LA2?-G%->A%-g-3A/-+J-:(.-:I<-IA-<A$?0?-$/R.-0:A-KA<, .J-v<-i3-0-2./-IA?-.J.-/->A%-g-3A-fJ.-0-)A-v-228A/-/R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
397
[529] The second, the expanded explanation of this, has two parts:
1) The illustrating example
2) The point illustrated by the example
The first of these, the illustrating example, has two parts:
1) The presentation
2) Its explanation
The first of these
A carriage cannot be considered distinct from its parts,
Nor is it identical with them. It does not possess them.
It does not depend on them or they on it.
It is not their mere assembly or their shape. (151)
A carriage cannot be asserted to be something different from its own parts,
the bolts and so on, because no carriage is observed separate from its parts.
It is not identical with them, because, in that case, it would follow as an
absurd consequence that the function43 and the one performing it would
be the same and each individual part would be the carriage.
It does not possess the parts either, since, in being neither identical with
nor different from each other, the one could not objectively serve as the
possessor of the other.
The carriage does not depend on its parts, nor do the parts depend on
the carriage, because they are not different from each other.
It is not the mere assembly of its parts, since the faults mentioned above
would apply.
The shape is not the carriage either, because that will be invalidated by
a line of reasoning that will be explained below.
That is how it is that one cannot find the carriage, namely, when one
examines it in these seven ways.
398
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-;/-=$-.$$ ;/-=$-3J.-0:A-;/-=$-&/-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-=-KR$?-KA-3-$*A?-,/-3R%-.-.$$ .LA2?-LJ-V$-+-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-=, 5S$?-43-.$$ .LA2?-,/-3R%-.-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
$=-+J-5S$?-43->A%-g<-:I<-/-/A,,
?A=-2<-$/?-=->A%-g-*A.-;R.-:I<,, 152 !#
$=-+J-;/-=$-5S$?-43->A%-g-;A/-0<-:I<-/-/A-$9J<-2-?R$?-;/-=$?A=-2<-$/?-0-=->A%-g-*A.-;R.-0<-:I<-+J, 5S$?-0-/A-5S$?-0-&/=?-$8/-3-;A/-0:A-KA<,
$*A?-0-/A,
$%-KA<-;/-=$-&/-3J.-;/-=$-.$,,
3J.-0?-.LA2?-43->A%-g<-<A$?-0:%-3A/,, 152 $%
$%-KA<-;/-=$-&/-3J.-/-;/-=$-3J.-0?-+J-.J-.$-2vR?-/?-28$-0:AKA<, ;/-=$-&/-3J.-/-;/-=$-3J.-0:A-KA<, ;/-=$-5S$?-0:A.LA2?-43->A%-g<-<A$?-0:%-3-;A/-/R,, :%-$A-1?-5S$?-0-43-0R:%>A%-g<-3A-<A$?-?R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
399
The second, its explanation, has two parts:
1) The refutation of the parts
2) The refutation of the proposition that there could be a whole44 without
parts
The first of these, the refutation of the parts, has two sections:
1) The joint refutation of the two preceding points45
2) The specific refutation of the shape
The first of these, the joint refutation of the two preceding points, also has
two parts:
1) The refutation of the mere collection46
2) The general refutation of the shape
The first of these
If the mere collection of parts could be the carriage,
A heap of pieces, that would be a carriage! (152ab)
If the mere collection of its parts were the carriage, a heap of bolts and other
[unassembled] pieces would be the carriage, because the collection is not
something other than the whole.47
[530] Second, the general refutation of the shape
Because there is no whole, there can be no parts;
So, to call the shape the carriage is also nonsense. (152cd)
Where there is no whole, there can be no parts, because the two rely on
each other to be categorized in such a way. Because there are no parts where
there is no whole, it would also be nonsense to call the bare shape of the
collection of parts the carriage. The term “also” [in the root text here
extends the application of the statement being made. In other words, any
claim] that the mere collection of a carriage’s components would be the
carriage would also be nonsense.
400
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, .LA2?-m?-?-;R.-0-.$$ 2+$?-;R.-;A/-/-!/-=:%35%?, <%-=-,-~.-.%-:$=-2-%%-2-$?3, .%-0R-=-;/-=$-.%5S$?-0:A-.LA2?-.$$-0-$*A?, .%-0R-=-}<-IA-.LA2?-GA-H.-0<-32+%-2-.%-, 2+%-2:A-.LA2?-;A/-0-.$$-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
HR.-.LA2?-;/-=$-<J-<J-}<-;R.-I<,,
)A-28A/->A%-g<-$+R$?-=:%-.J-28A/-/,,
LJ-2-I<-0-.J-.$-=-)A-v<,,
.J-v<-;%-/A->A%-g-;R.-3-;A/,, 153
$=-+J-HR.->A%-g:A-;/-=$-<J-<J-2-:1%-=R-=-?R$?-GA-.LA2?->A%-g-32&?-0:A-}<-;R.-0<-I<-0-)A-v-2-28A/-.-v->A%-g<-gR$?-0-=:%.LA2?-GA-H.-0<-.J-28A/-;A/-/, ;/-=$-.J-.$-?R-?R<-LJ-2<-I<-0-=>A%-g-3J.-0-)A-v-2<-.-v->A%-g<-2&?-0:A-{2?-?-;%->A%-g-;R.-0-3A/+J, >A%-g-2&?-3-2&?-GA-{2?-GA-:1%-=R-?R$?-GA-.LA2?-=-H.-0<3J.-0:A-KA<,
The Absence of Personal Self
401
The second, the specific refutation of the shape, has three parts:
1) The refutation of any substantial existence of the shape
2) That its existence as sheer imputation applies to every similar case as
well
3) Dispelling the notion that we contradict common consensus
The first, the refutation of any substantial existence of the shape, has two
parts:
1) The refutation of the shape of the parts
2) The refutation of the shape of the collection of parts
The first, the refutation of the shape of the parts, is twofold:
1) The refutation of the particular shape of the parts before assembly
2) The refutation of the shape of the parts after assembly
The first of these
If you say that each of the parts that belongs to the carriage
Is the same in shape as before these were assembled,
There would be no carriage now that they are assembled,
Just as there wasn’t before they were assembled. (153)
If you say the specific shape of each of the parts included in the present
carriage is the same as the shape of these parts, the wheels and all the rest,
before they were assembled, there would be no carriage now they are
assembled, just as there was no carriage when those separate parts had not
yet been assembled, because there is no difference in the shape of the wheels
and so on, whether these have been assembled as a carriage or not.
402
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
.-v-$=-+J->A%-g-*A.-.?-:.A<,,
:1%-=R-?R$?-=-.LA2?-,-..-;R.-/,,
:.A-$9%-:I<-/-.J-;%-;R.-3A/-+J,,
.J-KA<-.LA2?-43->A%-g<-;R.-3-;A/,, 154
.LA2?-43->A%-g<-;R.-0-3A/-+J, .-v-$=-+J->A%-g-2&?-+J-;R.-0-*A.-GA.?-:.A<-:1%-=R-.%-YR$->A%-=-?R$?-0-?R-?R<-z3-0-<A%-2-?R$?-}<>A%-g-3-2&?-0:A-{2?-=?-.LA2?-,-..-0-$8/-8A$->A%-g-*A.-GA-.?-?;R.-/-/A-.LA2?-:.A-29%-.-:I<-/-.J-;%-;R.-0-3-;A/-0:A-KA<-+J-o-35/.J:A-KA<-<R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
$%-KA-HR.-GA-5S$?-0-&%-3J.-0?,,
.LA2?-.J-;/-=$-5S$?-GA-3-;A/-/,,
$%-8A$-&A-;%-3-;A/-.J-2gJ/-/?,,
:.A<-/A-.LA2?-?-v-8A$-)A-v<-:I<,, 155
:1%-=R-?R$?-;/-=$-5S$?-0-i3?-GA-.LA2?-GA-H.-0<->A%-g-;A/-0<8J/-/-.J-;%-3A-:P2-2R-8J?-$%-8A$-&%-9.-43-IA-&A-;%-;R.-0-3-;A/-0:A5S$?-0-.J-=-2gJ/-/?-:.A<-/A-.LA2?-?-$.$?-0<-v-8A$-)A-v<-:I<-+J3A-:I<-2<-,=, 2+$?-0-/A-m?-GA-gJ/-&/-#R-/<-#?-]%?-0-=?-m??-3-P2-0:A-KA<, P2-2R-~3-/-3-P2-!J, $%-KA<-HR.-GA-5S$?-0-8J?-L2:A-m?-&%-P2-0-3J.-0?-.LA2?-.J-;/-=$-5S$?-43-IA-gJ/-&/-3-;A//-!J, .J:A-KA<,
The Absence of Personal Self
403
[531] Second, the refutation of the shape of the parts after assembly
If the wheels and so on had a different shape
Now, at this point in time when they are a carriage,
That would be perceptible, yet it is not;
And therefore the shape per se is not a carriage. (154)
The shape per se does not exist as a carriage, because, now they have been
assembled as a carriage, the specific shapes—rectangular, elongated, and
so on—of the wheels, axle, and other parts are no different than they were
before the carriage was assembled. If they were, this would be perceptible,
but it is not.
The second, the refutation of the shape of the collection of parts
Since your collection has no existence at all,
How could its shape be the shape of the parts’ collection?
And how could something visible as a shape
Exist dependent on something that does not? (155)
If you say, “The carriage is the distinctive shape of the whole collection of
parts, wheels and all,” that is not conclusive either. How could something
imputed to be a shape dependent on a collection which has no actual existence whatsoever [actually exist as a shape]? Clearly, it could not. An imputation is merely claimed to have substantial basis but has no substantial
form of existence.
You might think, “It does exist”; but it doesn’t, because that shape is not
actually based on the mere collection of parts, since your so-called “mere
collection” itself has no substantial existence whatsoever.
404
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-.%R?-.%-, 23-?R$?-.%-, $9$?-?R$?-GA-.LA2?-3A-<A$?0-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
HR.-GA-:.A-/A-)A-v<-:.R.-.J-v<,,
3A-2.J/-0-;A-o-=-2gJ/-L?-/?,,
:V?-2:A-i3-0-3A-2.J/-<%-28A/-&/,,
,3?-&.-G%-/A-*J-2<->J?-0<-IA?,, 156
&A-!J-5S$?-43-IA-.LA2?-3A-2.J/-.-9A/-G%-5S$?-0-=-2gJ/-/?-3A-2.J/0:A-.LA2?-?-:I<-<R,, 8J?-:.R.-/-HR.-GA?-:.A-/A-)A-v<-:.R.-0-.J-v<3-<A$-0-.%-?-2R/-?R$?-3A-2.J/-0:A-o-=-2gJ/-0<-L?-/?-:.-LJ.-.%-M$-?R$?-:V?-2:A-i3-0-3A-2.J/-0:A-<%-28A/-&/-,3?-&.-G%-/A-*J-2<>J?-0<-IA?->A$ <A-?$?-GA-3A$-;R<-=-29:-:.R.-GA?-YJ.-0<-3A-<A$?+J-:2.-lR=-2o-U$-$A?-G%->-9-2<-3A-/?-0-28A/, .%R?-0R-=-3%R/0<-8J/-0?-&A-L,
$*A?-0-/A,
:.A?-/A-$9$?-?R$?-.J-v<-$/?-i3?-=,,
23-]R-8J?-L:/$-<A$?-0-3-;A/-*A.,, 157 !#
>A%-g:A-.0J-:.A-/A-$9$?-?R$?-h=-m?-2o.-2!R.-0-.J-v<-$/?-0i3?-=-23-0-8J?-0:A-m?-?R$?-GA-.%R?-0R<-P2-0:A-]R-8J?-L-2-:L%2:%-<A$?-0-3-;A/-0-*A.-.J, .J-.$-=->A%-g:A-i3-.J.-35%?-0:A-KA<,
The Absence of Personal Self
405
Second, that its existence as sheer imputation applies to every similar case
as well; this has three parts:
1) The actual point of all this
2) That the shape of a vase or anything else is untenable
3) That the shape of a form or anything else is untenable
The first of these
In line with how you now assert it to be,
Basically unreal images of results
Appear on the basis of causes that are unreal.
Know the arising of all to be like that. (156)
[532] You might now come to the conclusion that, even though the shape
of the mere collection is decidedly unreal, there would nevertheless be a
shape based on that collection, albeit an unreal shape.
In line with how you now assert it to be, know for sure that the arising
of all basically unreal images of results, such as karmic formations, sprouts,
and so on occurs based on unreal causes such as ignorance, seeds, and so
on. It makes no sense, driven by desire for food, to crave an optical illusion that seems to be a deer, since one will not be able to eat its flesh, even
after hundreds of attempts. In the same way, what is the use of tenaciously
clinging to things?
Secondly, that the shape of a vase or anything else is untenable
And this also shows your idea illogical
That there is a vase where there is a form and so on. (157ab)
The example of the carriage shows that the idea of there being a substantial existence of things and one’s application of a name such as “vase” to
the form and so on present in a particular way, namely, as an arrangement
of eight-particle substances,48 is unfounded, since one can apply the same
analysis here that was applied to the carriage.
406
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
*J-2-3J.-0?-$9$?-?R$?-G%-;R.-3A/,,
.J-;A-KA<-;%-.J-.$-.LA2?-3A-<A$?,, 157 $%
m?-GA-*J<-=J/-&/-.-:.R.-0:A-23-?R$?-3A-<A$?-0?-23-?R$?-.J-.$$9$?-.LA2?-GA-H.-0<-&/-.-;%-3A-<A$?-+J, $9$?-?R$?-G%-*J-23J.-0?-<%-28A/-IA?-;R.-0-3A/-0<-2>.-9A/-0?-23-?R$?-$.$?-o<;%-3A-:,.-0-.J:A-KA<-;%-%R-,,
$?3-0-=, 2.J/-$*A?-?-3-fJ.-G%-3-.J.-0<-2gJ/-/?-:.R$?-0-.%-,
.J:A-,-~.-,3?-&.-G%-3-.J.-0<-P$?-0?-:.R., .J?-.J-#R-/-*A.-GA$+A%-.0R$?-0<-:I<-2-.%-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
.J-/A-.J-*A.-.:3-:)A$-gJ/-.,,
i3-0-2./-IA?-:P2-:I<-3A/-3R.-GA,,
i3-.J.-3J.-0<-:)A$-gJ/-*A.-=?-:.A<,,
<%-$A-;/-=$-2gJ/-/?-:.R$?-0-;A/,, 158
:R-/-.J.-0-2./-IA?-24=-/->A%-g-3J.-0?-:)A$-gJ/-/->A%-g:A-,-~.:.R$?-0-o/-(.-0<-:I<-/->A%-g-:R/-&A$-*R?->A$-?R$?-3,R%-2?->A%g-;R.-.R-8J-/, >A%-g:A-,-~.-:)A$-gJ/-/-(.-0-:.A-/A-HR.-=-:I<-+J,
i3-0-
The Absence of Personal Self
407
Thirdly, that the shape of a form or anything else is untenable
Since the form and so on are non-arisen, they do not exist either;
And thus, to say they have a shape is indefensible. (157cd)
Since there are no logical grounds for asserting that vases and so on are
incorporators of substances, there are no logical grounds [for assuming any
actual existence] of the distinctive shape of any form, such as a vase or whatever, because the form and so on are non-arisen and therefore do not exist
with a makeup of their own, as already explained. It is, therefore, just as
indefensible to think that these forms and so on are valid causes for imputing the names “vase” and so on.
[533] The third point, dispelling the notion that we contradict common
consensus, has three parts:
1) That there is imputation based on no analysis, even though what is
being imputed cannot be found in terms of the two truths
2) That conventions are asserted due to unanalyzed common consensus
3) That this is how the suchness is fathomed in depth
The first of these
In reality as well as in the world,
These seven approaches do not prove the carriage exists;
Nevertheless, we do not analyze it
But accept its imputed existence based on its parts
In full accord with consensus in the world. (158)
There are some who might say, “This seven-point investigation shows that
the carriage does not exist. So that should put an end to the use of the term
‘carriage’ in the world. Yet we see people saying things like, ‘Get the carriage’; or, ‘Buy that carriage.’ So the carriage must exist.”
408
The Moon of Wisdom
2./-IA?-.J.-/->A%-g-3A-fJ.-&A%-, HR.-GA?-.J.-/?->A%-g-:)R$-0-=?$8/-3A-5-2:A-KA<->A%-g-:R/-&A$-?R$?-HR.-=-)A-v<-:P2, #R-2R-=-*J?0-3J.-.J, >A%-g-.J-/A-.3-0:A-.R/-.%-!/-mR2-+-.J.-/-<A$?-0-i3-2./IA?-:P2-:I<-3-;A/-3R.-GA, .J-v:A-i3-.J.-3J.-0<-:)A$-gJ/-P$?-0*A.-=?->A%-g-:.A<-:1%-=R-?R$?-<%-$A-;/-=$-=-2gJ/-/?-:.R$?-0;A/-/R,, .J?-/-gJ/-:L%-nJ/-:.A-0-43-#R-2R?-#?-=J/-0?-3-.J.-0<-,~.-o/-3A-:(.-=, HR.-G%-,-~.-2eR.-/-.J-v<-2eR.-0<-:R?-?R,,
$*A?-0-=-.%R?-.%-, ;/-=$-?R$?-3J.-0-3A-:,.-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
.J-*A.-;/-=$-&/-.J-(->?-&/,,
>A%-g-.J-*A.-LJ.-0R-8J?-:PR<-2~.,,
*J-2R-i3?-=-=J/-0R-*A.-.-:P2,, 159 !#$
#R-2R-&$-P$?-0:A-(-/?->A%-g:A-,-~.-:.R$?-0-(J?-$?=-2<-3-9.i3-.J.-3J.-0<-:.A:A-3A%-;%-,-~.-=-:)$-0-/-P$?-0-v<-2eR..$R?-+J,
The Absence of Personal Self
409
[In response we Prasangikas would say,] “The term ‘carriage’ would
indeed, as far as you are concerned, have to stop being used in the world,
precisely because no carriage is to be found when this seven-point analysis is applied and you have no other way to posit it than through analysis.
As a result, you could no longer [accept or employ any] talk about it [as if
it were something actually present], so how could statements people make
like, ‘Get the carriage,’ be a proof for you of its existence?”
But we do not fall into that dilemma. For us, it is indeed such that a carriage cannot be verified through the seven steps of this rational analysis to
exist, either in genuine reality or in the relative world. Nevertheless, we do
not apply such an analysis to it but accept that the carriage has an imputed
existence with reference to its parts, the wheels and so on, in full accord
with common consensus in the world.
And thus we accept precisely what it is, namely, a case of conditions arising in interrelation; consequently, we do not have to stop using the conventions stemming from the unexamined context. When you employ
conventions, you would do well to use them like this.
The second, that conventions are asserted due to unanalyzed common
consensus; this point has two parts:
1) The actual statement
2) That it is inappropriate [to proclaim indiscriminately] that the parts and
so forth do not exist
The first of these
One says the carriage has parts and sections and functions
And exists for beings as an incorporator. (159a-c)
[534] We make it very clear that we use this term “carriage” as a mere imputation in accordance with common consensus. But we also stress that, even
when the term is being used as a convention by those who have not examined it, its usage is necessarily determined by consensus, as can be seen by
the following.
410
The Moon of Wisdom
>A%-g-.J-*A.-:1%-=R-?R$?-<%-$A-;/-=$-=-2vR?-/?-;/-=$-&/-;%;A/-=, >A%-g-.J-:1%-=R-?R$?-(->?-=-2vR?-/?-(->?-&/-.%-, >A%g-.J-*A.-$9J<-2-?R$?-]%-L-=-2vR?-/?-LJ.-0R-*A.-.R-8J?-:PR-2-:.A-.$2~/-&A%-, <%-$A-*J<-=J/-=-2vR?-/?-*J-2R-i3?-=-P$?-0:A-;/-=$$A-=J/-0R-*A.-.-P2-2R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
:)A$-gJ/-P$?-0:A-!/-mR2-3-2_$-&A$, 159 %
<%-#J-#-&A$-;/-=$-5S$?-0-43-8A$-;R.-GA, ;/-=$-&/-i3-0-,3?&.-.-3J.-0-.%-, (->?-.%-=?-.%-*J-2<-]%-L-:2:-8A$-;R.-GA, (&/-.%-LJ.-0R-.%-=J/-0R-?R$?-3J.-.R-8J?-:)A$-gJ/-!/-mR2-P$?-0-=?KA/-&A-=R$-+-5-2-.J-.$-$A-v<-/-$+/-5B$?-.J-*A.-GA?-;/-=$-?R$?-G%3J.-0<-:I<-+J, ;/-=$-.%-;/-=$-&/-?R$?-1/-5/-2vR?-/?-28$0:A-KA<, .J?-/-HR.-=-2^R$-!J-5-/-(.-0:A-*J?-0-/A-HR.-<%-$A?-#?]%?-0?-;/-=$-.%-;/-=$-&/-?R$?-:)A$-gJ/-/-P$?-0:A-!/-mR2-32_$-&A$ #R-2R-&$-.J-.$-,-~.-.-/A-2vR?-/?-28$-0?-$*A?-!:%-;R.=, .J.-/-$*A?-!:%-;R.-0-3-;A/-/R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
411
People speak of a carriage as having parts; this is a matter of consensus
relative to the wheels and other parts. They speak of it as having sections;
this is also a matter of consensus relative to the wheels and so on [which
are being imputed as comprising] sections of the carriage. They refer to it
as performing functions; this is relative to the bolts and so on which are
incorporated by it. And its being [spoken of as] an incorporator of its parts
is a matter of consensus among beings relative to what is incorporated.
The second, that it is inappropriate [to proclaim indiscriminately] that the
parts and so on do not exist
Don’t ruin the relative context of common consensus. (159d)
Some in our own ranks say that the mere collection of parts exists, but that
a whole, i.e., a bearer of those parts, does not exist in any way. They further say that only the sections, the functions, and what is incorporated
exist; not the whole which is the bearer of these sections, a performer of
the functions, or an incorporator, and so on. If such statements, which are
incorrect in terms of relative worldly consensus, were true as stated, one
would also have to logically conclude that the parts and all the rest would
not exist either, because parts and a whole are posited with reference to
each other.
Nevertheless, were we to go around speaking to you in the opposite [of
the way terms are used in common consensus], that could lead to the fault
of someone falling into nihilism.49 Since you accept that [this indeed might
happen], do not ruin the relative context, which is a matter of consensus
in the world, where one speaks of parts, a whole, and so on. For us, speaking in a strictly conventional context, both exist, since they are posited with
reference to each other; but, if examined, neither exists.
412
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-.0-/A,
i3-2./-IA?-3J.-$%-.J-)A-v-2<,,
;R.-&J?-i=-:LR<-0?-:.A:A-;R.-3A-fJ.,,
.J?-.J-*A.-=:%-2.J-]$-:)$-:I<-2?,,
:.A<-.J:A-P2-0-.J-28A/-:.R.-0<-L,, 160
.J?-/-.%R?-0R-i3?-.J.-/-;R.-0-3-;A/-G%-3-.J.-/-;R.-0?-.J.-0-/.J-*A.-GA-$+A%-.0R$-0<-:I<-2?->A%-g-<%-28A/-IA?-P2-0<-;R.-/.J.-0:A-5K, i3-0-2./-=?-$%-;%-<%-2-8A$-$A-%R-2R<-fJ.-0<-:I<-/i3-0-2./-IA?-24=-2-/-3J.-0:A->A%-g-$%-.J-)A-v-2<-;R.-&J?-i=-:LR<0?-.JR.-5K->A%-g-:.A:A-;R.-0-3A-fJ.-.J, >A%-g-/A-3-<A$-0:A-=A%-+R$-$A?*3?-0<-L?-0-#R-/?-2+$?-0<-9.-GA, <%-$A-%R-2R?-!R%-0<-gR$?-0.J?-.J-*A.-GA-.R/-=-;%-2.J-]$-+-:)$-0<-:I<-2?-?R,, :%-$A-1?-/A!/-mR2-=?-G%-3A-*3?-?R,, 3-.J.-0-:.A<-/A-!/-mR2->A%-g-.J:A-P2-0/A-P$?-0:A-P2-0:A-|R-/?-.J-28A/-:.R.-0<-L-!J, .J-v<-:.R.-0-=-*R/3J.-&A%-;R/-+/-.%-w/-0:A-KA<,
The Absence of Personal Self
413
The third, that this is how the suchness is fathomed in depth
How could that which does not exist in these seven different ways
Be said to exist? Yogis find no existence of such a thing.
Because of this, they easily penetrate how it actually is;
And that is why here we have to assert their existence the way we do. (160)
Thus, when examined, things do not exist; when not examined, they do.
So, it is this examination that makes it possible to break through to the
very crux of how things actually are. So, if a carriage were something verifiably existing with a solid nature, when examined, it would be found to
actually exist in at least one of the seven ways.
How could that carriage, which does not exist in any of the seven ways
when investigated, be said to exist?
When yogis analyze this, they do not find the existence of the carriage.
The carriage is nothing but an imputation due solely to an impairment [of
intelligence] caused by the veil of ignorance. Their realizing it is empty of
an essence of its own is what makes it possible for them, among other
things, to easily penetrate how it actually is. “Among other things” here
means that [besides realizing the ultimate truth,] they would not lose sight
of the relative [and fall into nihilism].
And that is why here, i.e., at the unexamined level, we have to assert the
existence of the carriage the way we do, namely, as existing relatively in the
context of common consensus, because such an assertion is free of error
and replete with positive qualities.
414
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-.R/-.%R?-.%-, .J-.0J?-$?=-2<-L?-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
>A%-g-;R.-*A.-3A/-/-.J-;A-5K,,
;/-=$-&/-3J.-.J:A-;/-=$-G%-3J.,, 161 !#
i=-:LR<-0?->A%-g-3-.3A$?-=-<$-3R., .J:A-;/-=$-5S$?-0-43-8A$/A-;R.-.R-8J-/, &A-$3-2-5B$-/?-,=-2-=-$=-3-5S=-2-HR.-/A-28.-$.-.L-2-8A$-!J, >A%-g-*A.-;R.-0-3A/-/-.J:A-5K-.J:A-;/-=$-G%-3J.-.J, .J-=2vR?-0:A-;/-=$-&/-3J.-0:A-KA<, $=-+J->A%-g-8A$-0-/-;%-:1%-=R?R$?-.3A$?-0:A-KA<, ;/-=$-&/-3J.-G%-;/-=$-;R.-.R-~3-/, ;/=$-&/-3J.-0<-;/-=$-;R.-0<-I<-0-3A/-+J, }<-;/-=$-&/->A%-g3,R%-2:A-gR$?-0-#R-/?-:1%-=R-?R$?-?A=-2<-3,R%-2-/-:.A-.$-/A->A%g:A-;/-=$-$R-8J?-gR$?-GA, $8/-.-.J-.%-:VJ=-2-3A->J?-0-=-.J:A-;/=$-$R-8J?-gR$?-0-3J.-0:A-KA<,
$*A?-0-/A,
>A%-g-5B$-/-;/-=$-3J.-.0J-28A/,,
]R-3J?-;/-=$-&/-2YJ$?-;/-=$-$R,, 161 $%
.0J<-/->A%-g-3J?-5B$-/-.J:A-;/-=$-G%-5B$-/?-3J.-0:A-.0J-28A/-i3.JR.-GA-$42->A%-$42?-0-=?-L%-2:A-]R-PR?-GA-3J?-;/-=$-&/->A%-g3-=?-0<-2YJ$?-0-/-;/-=$-G%-5B$-0<-:I<-<R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
415
[535] The second, the refutation of the proposition that there could be a
whole without parts; this has two sections:
1) The actual point
2) The illumination of that point through an example
The first of these
If the carriage itself does not exist, at the same time
There is no whole; so its parts could not exist either. (161ab)
You might say by way of objection, “We accept that yogis find no objectively observable carriage; nevertheless, the sheer collection of its parts
exists.”
You who search for yarn in the ashes of a burnt-up blanket are a ludicrous bunch. If the carriage itself does not exist, at the same time its parts
will not exist either, because the whole, which [only exists] in relation to
them, would not exist. And that is the case because, if there were a carriage,
its wheels and so on would be detectable.50
If you are thinking by way of rebuttal that there could be parts but no
whole, we would have to reply that without the sum of the parts51 there
would be no parts. This is because it is only by knowing what a carriage is
by having seen a whole carriage previously that one knows, on seeing
wheels and other components, that these are the parts of a carriage; otherwise, if one does not know what they relate to, one will not understand
what they are the parts of.
The second, the illumination of that point through an example
Just as, when a fire burns up a carriage, its parts no longer exist,
When the fire of understanding burns up the whole, the parts are burned
as well. (161cd)
To illustrate this, when a fire burns up a carriage, its parts are also burned
up and no longer exist. And in the same way, when the fire of understanding—kindled by rubbing together the sticks of analysis—burns away
the whole carriage leaving nothing behind, its parts will be burned away
as well.
416
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-2.$-2gJ/-/?-2+$?-0<-2!/, .J:A-1/-;R/-v-2-,3?-&.2^R$-0<-:I<-2, 2.$-.%-2.$-$A-2-3J.-0<-gR$?-0?-PR=-2-$?3,
.%-0R-=-,-~.-.-1%-?R$?-=-2gJ/-/?-2+$?-5=, =?-.%-LJ.-0R:C-,~.-:(.-5=-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
.J-28A/-:)A$-gJ/-P$?-0?-1%-0R-.%-,,
#3?-.%-.J-28A/-*J-3(J.-S$-2gJ/-/?,,
2.$-G%-*J-2<-=J/-0R-*A.-.-:.R.,, 162 !#$
)A-v<-:1%-=R-=-?R$?-=-2gJ/-/?->A%-g<-:.R$?->A%-:1%-=R-?R$?-*J2<-=J/-0-;A/-=, >A%-g-*J-2<-=J/-0R-;A/-0-.J-28A/-.-:)A$-gJ/-P$?%R<-!/-mR2-,-~.-3A-$&R.-0<-i3-0<-28$-0?-.J:A-(J.-.-1%-0R-s-.%-,
/%-$A-#3?-S$-.%-, .J-28A/-$9$?-?R$?-*J-3(J.-S$-=-2gJ/-/?2.$-+-*J-2<-:.R$?-0:A-KA<, 1%-0R-?R$?-.J-.$-2.$-$A-*J<-=J/-;A/=, 2.$-G%-.J-.$-$A-*J-2<-=J/-0-0R-*A.-.-:.R.-.R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
*J<-=J/-=?-;A/-:.A-/A-LJ.-0R:%-;A/,, 162 %
)A-v<-*J-2<-=J/-0-.%-*J-2<-=J/-0R:C-i3-$8$->A%-g-v<-:)A$-gJ/-IAP$?-2eR.-.-2.$-$A-=?-.%-LJ.-0R-=:%-.J-v<-2eR.-.J, *J<-=J/-1%?R$?-/A-=?-;A/-&A%-, 2.$-:.A-/A-.J-.$-$A-LJ.-0R:%-;A/-0<-3-.J.-0<28$-!J, 2.$-$A?-2?R.-/3?-;A/-3A/-.%-, 3A-IR-2:A-=?-2?$?-0?#3?-$?3-0:A-1%-0R-=J/-0<-,-~.-LJ.-0:A-KA<,
The Absence of Personal Self
417
[536] The second, the point illustrated by the example,52 has three parts:
1) The presentation of the point that the self is a relative imputation
2) The benefits of this presentation, namely, that all views are overturned
3) Liberation through realizing that “I” and “mine” do not exist
The first of these, the presentation of the point that the self is a relative
imputation, has two parts:
1) How the self is imputed with reference to the skandhas and so forth in
a conventional context
2) How the terms “product” and “creator” are explained here
The first of these
And in the same way, in accordance with worldly consensus,
The self is also described as incorporator
With reference to skandhas and dhatus and six ayatanas. (162a-c)
Just as the imputation of a carriage is made with reference to the wheels
and so on, while the wheels and so on are what are incorporated, with the
carriage as the incorporator; in the same way, to be in keeping with the
presentation that does not discard the conventions employed in the context of worldly consensus, a self is imputed with reference to the five skandhas, the six inner dhatus, and the six ayatanas of form and so on. Thus,
the skandhas and so on are described as being what is incorporated within
a self and a self is described as being the incorporator.
The second, how the terms “product” and “creator” are explained here
Products are the embodied; this, the creator. (162d)
Just as with the classifications “what is incorporated” and “the incorporator” in the case of the carriage, just so with “product” and “creator” in the
context of a self—these expressions accord with common usage in the
world. The products consist of the skandhas and so on, which are the incorporated factor; and this—namely, the self—is presented at the unexamined level as their creator, because “self ” is the convention used for the one
who gathers meritorious, nonmeritorious, and stable actions and, as a
result, incorporates the skandhas typical of the three realms.
418
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
.%R?-;R.-3A/-KA<-:.A-/A-2g/-3A/-8A%-,,
3A-2g/-*A.-3A/-:.A-/A-*J-:)A$-3A/,,
:.A-=-g$-0-*A.-=-?R$?-0-;%-,,
;R.-3A/-.J-*A.-.%-/A-$8/-*A.-3A/,, 163
2gJ/-/?-2+$?-0-=-2gJ/-0:A-(R?-=-2gJ/-3A-2gJ/-?R$?-gR$-0:A-gJ/-3;A/-0-g$-3A-g$-$A-gR$-0-?R$?-G%-2^R$-a-2?, 2.$-&J?-2gJ/-/?2+$?-0-:.A-/A-<%-28A/-IA?-;R.-0-3-;A/-0?-.%R?-0R<-;R.-0-3A/-0:AKA<-.%-, }R/-:.?-0:A-*J-2<-L%-2:A-2gJ/-0-3-;A/-8A%-!J,
2!/-2&R?-=?,
:.?-0:A-.?-/-L%-I<-&J?,,
L-2-.J-/A-3A-:,.-.R,,
}R/-5K-i3?-?-$%-L%-2,,
.J-*A.-:.A-/A-3-;A/-/R,,
.J-*A.-2.$-+-:I<-~3-/,,
*J-2<-=J/-0-,-..-:I<,,
*J-2<-=J/-=?-3-$+R$?-0<,,
HR.-GA-2.$-/A-$%-8A$-;A/,,
&J?-?R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
419
[547] The second, the benefits of this presentation, namely, that all views
are overturned
Because this self does not exist as a thing,
It is neither supported nor unsupported; is not
Produced or destroyed; is not permanent and so forth;
It is neither the same as the skandhas nor different from them. (163)
Since phenomena that are supported on an imputation which [itself ] is
supported [on something else] do not comprise a solid foundation for
thinking about what is supported and unsupported,53 it is easy to counteract notions of their being permanent, impermanent, and so on. Since
this referential imputation referred to as “self ” does not exist with a solid
nature, it does not exist as a thing. And, because of this, it is not supported
on something that arose in the bygone past.54 As explained in the treatise
[The Knowledge Fundamental to the Middle Way 55]:
To say it arose from something in the past56
Is not a viable explanation;
That which arose in bygone times
Is not the same as what’s here now.
If you think it would be the same as itself,
It would differ from what it incorporates.
But, except for what it incorporates,
What could your self possibly be?
420
The Moon of Wisdom
}R/-3-L%-2-=?-L%-2:A-3A-2gJ/-0-*A.-G%-3A/-+J, 2!/-2&R?-=?,
3-L%-2-=?-L%-3A/-+J,,
:.A-=-*R/-.-,=-2<-:I<,,
2.$-/A-L?-0<-I<-0:3,,
:L%-2-o-3J.-&/-.-:I<,,
8J?-?R,,
2.$-:.A-/A-*J-2-.%-:)A$-0-;%-3A/-+J,,
*J-2<-=J/-0-2.$-3-;A/,,
.J-:L%-2-.%-:)A$-0-;A/,,
*J-2<-]%-2-)A-v-2<,,
*J-2<-=J/-0R-;A/-0<-:I<,,
8J?-?R,, :.A-=-g$-0-*A.-.%-3A-g$-0-=-?R$?-0-28A-;%-;R.-0-3A/-+J,
g$-.%-3A-g$-=-?R$?-0,,
8A-2-:.A-=-$-=-;R.,,
3,:-.%-3,:-3J.-=-?R$?-0,,
8A-2-:.A-=-$-=-;R.,,
$%-$A?-.J-28A/-$>J$?-;R.-&J?,,
:6B/-0-!$-0R?-29%-I<-0,,
.J-/A-M-%/-:.?-0-=,,
3J.-&J?-i3-gR$-gR$-0<-LJ.,,
The Absence of Personal Self
421
The self is not something unsupported57 either, that arose from something
that did not arise earlier. As explained in the treatise:
No thing can arise from what’s non-arisen,
For this would have faulty consequences:
The self would either be something created
Or something arisen without a cause.
The self is not produced or destroyed either:
The self is not what’s incorporated,
For that arises and disappears.
How could what is incorporated
Possibly be the incorporator?
Nor is it any of the four—permanent, impermanent, both, or neither:
Permanent or not or both or neither,
Where are the likes of these in the state of peace?
Having an end or not or both or neither—
Where are the likes of these in the state of peace?
Whoever is in the grip of strong fixation,
Claiming the tathagathas to exist,
Generates thoughts that think those don’t exist
Who’ve passed into nirvana past all grief.
422
The Moon of Wisdom
<%-28A/-IA?-/A-!R%-.J-=,,
?%?-o?-M-%/-:.?-/?-/A,,
;R.-.R-8J:3-3J.-.R-8J?,,
2?3-0-:,.-0<-3A-:I<-<R,,
8J?-?R,, 2.$-.J-1%-0R-=?-.J-*A.-.%-/A-$8/-*A.-3A/-+J,
$=-+J-1%-0R-2.$-;A/-/,,
*J-.%-:)A$-0-&/-.-:I<,,
$=-+J-1%-0R-i3?-=?-$8/,,
1%-0R:C-35/-*A.-3J.-0<-:I<,,
8J?-?R,,
$?3-0-=, 2.$-.%-2.$-$A-2-3-<A$-0-43-IA-.2%-$A?-3-.J.-0<2+$?, .J-$*A?-3J.-0<-gR$?-0?-PR=-2:A-5=-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
$%-KA<-g$-+-:PR-i3?-%<-:6B/-]R,,
<2-+-:L%-8A%-.J-;A-$%-;A/-.J<,,
%-;A<-:6B/-]R-:L%-2:A-2.$-.J-/A,,
3-2g$?-P$?-0<-$+A-3$-=?-;A/-/R,, 164
i3-0-2./-IA?-24=-/-3A-fJ.-G%-2.$-3J.-3-<A$-0:A-.2%-$A?-:)A$-v?:#R<-2<-:I<-2:A-2.$-.J-$%-8J-/, KA-<R=-0-.$-1%-0R-=?-$8/-.-8J/=, <%-#J-.$-1%-0R-.J-*A.-.3, .J-*A.-.%-$8/-.-2eR.-3J.-.-:6B/-&A%-,
2&R3-w/-:.?-GA?-)A-v-2<-2!/-0->J?-0-.$-$A-1%-0R-=-2gJ/-/?2+$?-0-43-=?-<%-28A/-3J.-.R-8J?-0-.J-43-8A$-=-2.$-$A-,-~.-LJ.-.J,
The Absence of Personal Self
423
It would not be defensible to think
That those who are empty by force of their very nature,
The Buddhas, those transcending misery,
Could be thought to exist or said to not exist.
The self is neither the same as nor different from the skandhas:
If it were such that the self were composed of the skandhas,
It would have to arise and then disintegrate.
If it were something other than the skandhas,
It would not possess the skandhas’ characteristics.
[549] The third, liberation through realizing that “I” and “mine” do not
exist, has two parts:
1) That “I” and “mine” are imputed without analysis, simply due to ignorance
2) How liberation occurs through realizing those two do not exist
The first of these
Beings always maintain the frame of mind
That conceives of an “I”; and, in conjunction with this,
They produce the mind frame conceiving of “mine”; this “self ”
Is the work of stupidity that accompanies
The unexamined realm of common consensus. (164)
You might now exclaim, “What kind of a self is this? When searched for
in all of the seven ways, you cannot find it, yet ignorance of its lack of existence forces you to circle in samsara entertaining transitory views!”
The Tirthikas take it to differ from the skandhas. In our own Buddhist
systems, some say it is the same as the skandhas; some, that it is inexpressible as identical with or differing from them; and some, who have understood it just as the Transcendent Conqueror has taught it, say it is a mere
imputation with reference to the skandhas but it has no makeup except
that. These are the kinds of conventions associated with self.
424
The Moon of Wisdom
$%-$A-KA<-/-2.$-.J-v-2-.?-g$-+-3A-.%-..-:PR-=-?R$?-0:A-:PR-2-3<A$-0-.%-w/-0-i3?-=-%<-:6B/-IA-]R-<2-+-:L%-2-.J:A-8J/-;=-/A-2.$;A/-&A%-, 2.$-.J:A-.2%-2+<-L:3-$.$?-0:A-gJ/-3A$-=-?R$?-0-/%.%-, =R%?-,.-L-$9$?-?R$?-KA-<R=-$%-;A/-.J<-%-;A<-:6B/-0:A-]R:L%-2:A-2.$-.J-/A-3-2g$?-P$?-0<-$+A-3$-$A-.2%-=?-;A/-/R-!J-<%$A-%R-2R?-P2-0-3-;A/-/R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
$%-KA<-LJ.-0R-3J.-&/-=?-3J.-0,,
.J-KA<-2.$-$A-2.$-3J.-0<-;R.-3A/,,
.J-KA<-2.$-.%-2.$-$A-!R%-v-8A%-,,
i=-:LR<-0-.J-i3-0<-PR=-2<-:I<,, 165
2.$-3J.-/-2.$-$A-2-;%-3J.-.3-8J-/, $%-$A-KA<-m-3#/-3J.-0<-230-3A-YA.-0-28A/-LJ.-0R-3J.-0<-=?-3J.-.J, LJ.-0R:C-L-2-:)$-;=-*A.-==?-?-2+$?-0:A-KA<, .J:A-KA<-2.$-$A-2-/A-;R.-0-3-;A/-+J, LJ.-0R:C2.$-3J.-0<-I<-0:A-KA<, .J:A-KA<-1%-0R-2.$-.%-2.$-$A-2?-!R%-0<2v-8A%-, :#R<-2-3-$9A$?-0-/-i=-:LR<-0-.J-i3-0<-PR=-2<-:I<-+J,
$9$?-?R$?-3-.3A$?-0-/-.J-=-($?-?R$?-GA-gR$-0-3A-:L%-2?-*/<%-.$-=J/-0-3J.-0<-M-%/-=?-:.:-=, L%-?J3?-/A-2.$-3J.-gR$?G%-~A%-eJ:A-.2%-$A?-YA.-0:A-o/-:6B/-0<-LJ.-0:R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
425
The referent object with respect to which beings under the influence of
ignorance, whether human, animal or otherwise, continually produce the
mind frame which conceives of “I” is a self. It is in relation to such a self
that the mind frame conceiving of “mine” is produced. [This idea, “mine,”
is] applied to whatever comes under the jurisdiction of this “self ” or serves
as a focal referent with respect to which the imputation of the self is entertained. This includes the eyes and so forth as interior possessions [of a supposed self ]. It also applies to whatever these experience, such as forms,
sounds, and so forth, as the exterior [possessions]. This “self ” is a byproduct of the stupidity that accompanies unexamined common consensus. This being so, it is not something existing with an essential component
of its own.
[550] The second, how liberation occurs through realizing those two do
not exist
Without a creating agent, there is no creation;
So “mine” does not exist, since there is no “I.”
Because of this, the emptiness of “I”
And “mine” can be seen and yogis gain full liberation. (165)
You might ask, “Why would it follow that, if there is no ‘I,’ there is no
‘mine’ either?” Without a potter, a vase is not possible; i.e., without a creating agent, there is no creation, because something is designated “a creation” where there is a creating agent producing a frame of reference.58 And
therefore “mine” does not exist, because there is no “I” as the creating
agent.
Because of this, the skandhas can be seen to be empty of an “I” and
“mine.” When samsara is no longer what is seen, yogis and yoginis gain
full liberation. When forms and so forth are no longer the focus, attachment to them and other kinds of thoughts will not occur, and because of
this, Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas attain nirvana, where there is no
grasping. Bodhisattvas also realize that there is no self, but compassion
empowers them to choose to continue in conditioned existence.
426
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-=-.%R?-0R-,3?-&.-2g/-/?-2+$?-0<-2!/, o-:V?-LJ-V$+-2>.-0-$*A?, .%-0R-=, .%R?-0R-i3?-.J.-/-3A-fJ.-G%-P$?-043-IA?-28$ ,-~.-,3?-&.-2.J/-0-$*A?-.%-3A-:$=-2-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
23-0-$3-2-<J-wJ-.3$-.%-/$?-5=-UJ%-2-uR/->A%-.%-,,
#%-HA3->A%-g-U/-.%-:PR/-$/?-=-?R$?-.%R?-i3?-$%-.$-.%,,
.J-28A/-$%-.$-|R-/?-*J-:.A?-2~.-0-.J-i3?-gR$?-L-!J,,
$%-KA<-,2-.2%-.J-/A-:)A$-gJ/-z/-&A$-lR.-3A-36.-KA<-<R,, 166
2.$-.%-.J:A-*J<-=J/->A%-g-.%-35%?-0-v<-.%R?-0R-,3?-&.-.J-.%-:S2<-21J-2-/A, 23-0-$3-2-<J-wJ-.3$-.%-/$?-5=-UJ%-2-uR/->A%-.%#%-HA3->A%-g-U/-.%-:PR/-$/?-=-?R$?-.%R?-0R-i3?-)A-~J.-0-$%-.$.J-.$-/A->A%-g-28A/-.-i3-0-2./-IA?-.J.-/-;R.-0-3-;A/-&A%-, .J-=?$8/-.-<%-$A-;/-=$-5S$?-=-2gJ/-/?-P$?-0<-;R.-.R-8J?-:)R$-0-.J28A/-.-.%R?-0R-$%-.$-o-35/-:.A-43-IA-|R-/?-*J-2R-!J-:PR-2-:.A?-2~..J-,-~.-L?-0-.J-i3?-3-2g$?-P$?-0?-28$-0<-gR$?-0<-L-!J,
$%-$A-KA<-8J-/, ,2-.2%-.J-/A-:)A$-gJ/-.%-z/-&A$-lR.-0-3A-36.-0<$?%?-0:A-KA<-+J, :)A$-gJ/-/A-%-.%-z/-&A$-lR., %-/A-:)A$-gJ/-.%z/-&A$-3A-lR.-&J?-:)A$-gJ/-IA-P$?-0-,-~.-.-3A-:$R$-0<-:(.-.R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
427
[551] The third, that everything else of the same type is therefore a mere
imputation as well; this has two parts:
1) The presentation of the point that all things are referential imputations
2) The specific explanation of causes and effects
The first of these, the presentation of the point that all things are referential imputations, has two parts:
1) That things are not found when analyzed but are simply inventions of
common consensus
2) That conventions do not contradict the two truths
The first of these
Pots and blankets, armies, tents and pony carts,
Forests, trees, homes and garlands, inns and so forth—
Be understanding when beings use terms from their own perspective.
And why? Because the Sage did not dispute with the world. (166)
A self and what it incorporates are just like the carriage. Everything else is
like that too. All things whatsoever, however many there be—pots, blankets, tents, armies, forests, and garlands, trees, homes, pony carts, inns,
and so forth—are all like the case of the carriage, which, when analyzed in
all seven ways, was discovered not to exist; and yet, in spite of that, common consensus insists that it exists by referring to its parts. In the same
way, one should be understanding when beings speak of things as they do,
because, when applying terms, they are speaking from their own perspective, namely, that of unexamined common consensus.
If you ask, “Why [should we be understanding and not dispute peoples’
imputations]?” Because the Sage said he would not dispute with the world.
He said, “The world disputes with me. I do not dispute with the world.”
This is a way of saying that common consensus as found in the world
should not be refuted in a conventional context.
428
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
;/-=$-;R/-+/-:.R.-($?-35/-*A.-.%-/A-2.->A%-=-?R$?-.%,,
;R/-+/-&/-;/-=$-&/-($?-.%-35/-$8A-3J-=-?R$?-.R/-.$,
.J-i3?->A%-g:A-i3-.J.-L?-0?-i3-2./-;R.-0-3-;A/-8A%-,,
.J-=?-$8/-.-I<-0<-:)A$-gJ/-P$?-0:A-|R-/?-;R.-0-;A/,,
167
:)A$-gJ/-/-.%R?-0R-$%-$A?-,-~.-)A-v<-:.R$?-8J-/, ;/-=$-;R/-+/:.R.-($?-35/-*A.-.%-/A-2.->A%-=-?R$?-.%-8J?-0-=-<A3-0-28A/-.;/-=$-&/-.%-;R/-+/-&/-.%-($?-0-.%-35/-$8A-.%-3J-=-?R$?-0:A.R/-.J-.$-}-KA-.<-/?-.J-i3?->A%-g-v<-i3-0-2./-IA?-i3-.J.-L?0?-+J-24=-;R.-0-3-;A/-&A%-, .J.-0-.J-=?-$8/-.-I<-0<-3-.J.:)A$-gJ/-P$?-0:A-|R-/?-(R?-.J-.$-;R.-0-;A/-/R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
429
[552] The second, that conventions do not contradict the two truths
The parts, qualities, passion, defining characteristics, firewood,
and so forth,
And the whole, quality-bearer, passionate one, basis of traits, a fire,
and so forth—
When thoroughly analyzed in the seven ways like the carriage,
are found not to exist.
They only exist in quite a different way, namely, in terms of common
consensus. (167)
If you ask, “In what sense is the existence of things in the world imputed
by terms?” The parts, qualities, passion, defining characteristics, firewood,
and so forth, and the whole, the bearer of the qualities, the passionate one,
the basis of characteristics, a fire, and so forth, which relate to the former
in respective order, when analyzed thoroughly in the same seven ways as
the carriage, turn out to not exist. That phenomena exist is something
quite different than what examination indicates; they only exist in terms
of common consensus in the world, which is unexamined.
430
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-o-:V?-1/-5/-2vR?-43-.-2!/, o-:V?-m?-?-P2-0.$$-0-$*A?, .%-0R-=-.%R?-.%-, 3A/-/-3A-:,.-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
$=-+J-o-;A?-2*J.-0<-L-*J.-.J-v-/-.J-o-;A/-8A%-,,
$=-+J-:V?-2-3A-*J.-/-/A-.J-3J.-o-3J.-&/-.-:I<,,
:V?-2-;%-/A-o-;R.-I<-/-*J-2<-:I<-2-.J-;A-KA<,, 168 !#$
;/-=$-?R$?-2vR?-28$-$A?-P2-0-.J-28A/-.-o-:V?-G%-2vR?-28$$A?-P2-0-;A/-+J, $%-$A-KA<-$=-+J-o-;A?-2*J.-0<-L-2-:V?-2-2*J.0-.J-v<-/-.J-o-;A/-&A%-, $=-+J-o-.J?-:V?-2-3A-2*J.-/-/A-:V?-2-.J3J.-0?-o:A-,-~.-o-3J.-&/-.-:I<-+J, o-.J-o<-:)R$-0:A-o-35/-3J.0<-o-;A/-/-,3?-&.-o-*A.-.-,=-2:A-KA<, .J?-/-o-;A/-3A/-/A-:V?-2*J.-LJ.-;A/-3A/-IA-eJ?-?-:PR-wR$-=?-:)R$-$R,, :V?-2-;%-/A-o-;R.0<-I<-/-*J-2<-:I<-8A%-, 3J.-/-3A-*J-2-.J:A-KA<-o-:V?-2vR?-28$=?-<%-28A/-IA?-;R.-0-/A-3A/-/R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
431
[553] The second, the specific explanation of causes and effects, has two
sections:
1) The presentation of the point that causes and effects are simply mutually dependent
2) The refutation of the claim that causes and effects are substantially existent
The first, the presentation of the point that causes and effects are simply
mutually dependent, has two parts:
1) The actual presentation
2) That it is untenable for this not to be the case
The first of these
If a cause produces something, that is what makes it a cause;
If no result is produced, there is nothing serving as cause.
And as for result, it can only occur if there is a cause. (168a-c)
Just as the existence [of the whole] is posited with respect to the parts, the
existence of cause and the existence of result are posited with respect to
each other. How does this [latter case] work?
If a cause produces something, i.e., a result, that is what makes it a cause.
Let’s say no result is produced by this cause; without a result, what is being
termed the cause is not something constituting a cause, because, if that
which has no reason for being called the cause could be the cause, it would
follow that anything could be the cause. Whether something is a cause or
not is therefore determined by whether or not there is a direct correspondence between there being or not being a result produced.
And as for the result, it too will only occur if there is a cause; otherwise,
it will not.
Therefore, causes and results are classified with reference to each other
and, for that very reason, do not exist with a makeup of their own.
432
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
$%-=?-$%-8A$-:I<-2-$%-8A$-=?-}<-$%-8A$-:I<-2-5R?,
168 %
HR.-<%-$A-%R-2R?-P2-0<-?J3?-/-o:3-:V?-2-KA?-:L%-o:3-:V?-2}<-P2-0-$%-=?-$%-8A$-:P2-0<-:I<-2-2gJ/-0-$%-8A$-=?-}<2gJ/-0-$%-8A$-:P2-0<-:I<-2-.J-5R?->A$ 5-3A-/?-0?-o-:V?-?$.$?-0;%->A%-g-v<-o<-L?-/?-:L%-$A-<%-$A-%R-2R?-/A-3-;A/-/R,,
$*A?-0-=-.%R?-.%-, 35%?-0-%%-2-$*A?, .%-0R-=-U.-3-U.2g$?-/?-.$$ :)R$-LJ.-3J.-0:A-o-3A-:,., .2-3-0-v<-/-3A-:$=2-$?3,
The Absence of Personal Self
433
[554] The second, that it is untenable for this not to be the case
So kindly inform me here, which of these comes from which?
Which of these was first, so the other could come from it? (168d)
If you think these exist verifiably with an essential component of their own,
kindly inform me which subsequently arisen cause or effect would exist
due to which previously existent cause or effect, and which supported factor would exist relative to which preceding factor that itself was supported.
You would not be able to say, because something is designated as a cause
with reference to a result and, as with the carriage, the occurrence [of the
result] is what makes [its producer] into a cause, but neither exists with an
essential component of its own.
The second, the refutation of the claim that causes and effects are substantially existent, has two parts:
1) The actual refutation
2) Dispelling similarities
The first, the actual refutation, includes three points:
1) Refutation through an examination of contact and lack of contact
2) That a cause which cannot be validated is untenable
3) The lack of contradiction in the Madhyamikas’ way of explaining this
434
The Moon of Wisdom
.%-0R-/A,
$=-+J-HR.-GA-o-;A?-U.-/?-:V?-*J.-LJ.-/-.J-;A-5K,,
.J-.$-/?-0-$&A$-0?-*J.-LJ.-:V?-2-,-..-3J.-:I<-8A%-,,
?R-?R<-/-/A-o-:.A-o-3A/-i3?-.%-H.-0<-3J.-:I<-=,,
$*A?-0R-:.A-.$-%%?-/?-gR$-0-$8/-;%-;R.-0<-:I<-3-;A/,,
169
$8/-;%-$=-+J-:V?-2-<%-28A/-IA?-2*J.-/-U.-/?-?3-3-U.-0<2*J., .%-0R-v<-HR.-GA-o-;A?-U.-/?-:V?-2-*J.-0<-LJ.-/-.J:A-5K-([%-.%-o-35S-U.-0-v<-o-:V?-.J-.$-/?-0-$&A$-+-I<-0?-:.A-*J.-LJ.o-.%-.J-2*J.-L-:V?-2:R-8J?-,-..-3J.-0<-:I<-8A%-, .J-v<-/-:V?-2o?-2*J.-0<-3A-:I<-<R,, 3-U.-0<-o-:V?-?R-?R<-;R.-0-=?-2*J.-//A-?:-=:A-o?-3-U.-0:A-/?-GA-:V?-2-$8/-3A-2*J.-0-v<-:V?-2-3A2*J.-0:3, ;%-/-:V?-2-;A/-3A/-!/-o-;A/-3A/-!/-IA?-2*J.-0<:I<-+J, 3-U.-0<-35%?-0:A-KA<, .J?-/-o-:.A-o-3A/-i3?-.%-H.0<-3J.-0<-:I<-/-.J-;%-HJ.-3A-:.R.-=, <%-28A/-IA?-P2-0:A-o-:V?;R.-/-2*J.-L-*J.-LJ.-U.-3-U.-$*A?-0R-:.A-.$-%%?-/?-gR$-0-$8/;%-$?3-0-;R.-0<-:I<-2-3-;A/-0?-<%-28A/-IA?-P2-0:A-o?-:V?-23A-2*J.-0-#R-/:R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
435
The first of these
If cause gives result through contact, as you say,
The two, during contact, would share an identical factor,
So cause and effect would not be different;
If the two are discrete, what constitutes a cause
And what does not would not be different.
But both are ruled out and no other concept applies. (169)
If a result is inherently produced, is it produced through contact59 [with
its cause] or without contact with it?
The first possibility is, as suggested here, that a cause produces a result
through merging with it. If that were the case, the cause and result would
share an identical factor,60 like a river meeting an ocean, so there would be
no difference in what you were calling the producing cause and the produced result. And, if that were the case, the result would not be produced
by the cause.
If, on the other hand, causes and results did not meet like this but existed
as separate, discrete [entities], either a result would not be produced (just
like the cause of rice, which has no connection with barley and does not
produce it as a result); or anything—regardless of whether it were a result
or not—could be produced by anything, regardless of whether it were its
cause or not, because all would be equivalent in not linking up with each
other. There would, therefore, be no difference between what is or is not
a cause. But this is not what you were proposing.
But, were causes and results to exist with a makeup of their own, produced and producer would have to either meet or not. But both of these
have been ruled out and there is no third conceptual model of how it happens. Thus the only possibility is that results are not produced by causes
in a manner that verifiably exists with an inherent nature.
436
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
&A-!J-HR.-GA-o-;A?-:V?-2-*J.-0<-3A-LJ.-.J-KA<-:V?,,
8J?-L-;R.-3A/-:V?-V=-o-/A-o-3J.-&/-:I<-;R.-0:%-3A/,,
170 !#
.J?-/-&A-!J-HR.-GA-o-;A?-:V?-2-2*J.-0<-3A-LJ.-/-.J:A-KA<-:V?-2-8J?-L;R.-0-3A/-=, :V?-2-.%-V=-2:A-o-/A-o:A-,-~.-:)$-0:A-o-3J.-&/-.:I<-+J, o:A-,-~.-:)$-0-/A-:V?-2-=-2vR?-0:A-KA<, o-o<-:)R$-0=:%-o-3J.-0<-;R.-0:%-3-;A/-0:A-KA<-o-:V?-<%-28A/-IA?-;R.-0-3;A/-/R,,
$?3-0-/A,
$%-KA<-:.A-.$-$*A?-(<-;%-/A-+-3-.%-:S-.J-;A-KA<,,
2.$-=-*R/-.-3A-:I<-:)A$-gJ/-0-;A-.%R?-0R-i3?-G%-;R.,,
170 $%
HR.-GA-=$?-=-o?-:V?-2-)A-v<-2*J.-&J-/, o-:V?-<%-28A/-IA?-P20<-5-2-=-.J.-0-:.A-:)$-$A, $%-$A-KA<-#R-2R-&$-v<-/-.%R?-0R-,3?&.-=R$-0<-!/-2g$?-0?-2*J.-0-*A.-GA?-o-:V?-:.A-.$-$*A?-&<;%-/A-+-3-.%-:S-2<-*J-2-3J.-G%-, <2-<A2-&/-IA?-.3A$?-0:A-0->.v<-gR$-0:A-;=-IA-.%R?-(R?-:.A-=-.J.-.-3J.-.J, .J:A-KA<-.2-3-0-2.$=-o-:V?-U.-3-U.-?R$?-2g$?-0:A-*R/-.-3A-:I<-8A%-, :)A$-gJ/-0:A.%R?-0R-3-.J.-$%-2-i3?-G%-$8/-%R<-;R.-0<-5-2-=-$/R.-0-3J.-.R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
437
[555] The second, that a cause which cannot be validated is untenable
Now what? The cause you propose gives no result,
So nothing is there to call the result. A cause that lacks
A result could not be a cause; it would just not occur at all. (170ab)
So, now what [can you say to defend your position]? If the cause you propose does not produce a result, there is nothing there that could be called
the result. And a cause that lacks a result could not be a cause or that to
which the term “cause” could be applied, because the use of the term
“cause” is with reference to a result. Specifying a cause as a cause would just
not occur at all with respect to what is not a cause; so, neither cause nor
result exists with a makeup of its own.
The third, the lack of contradiction in the Madhyamikas’ way of explaining this
And thus we conclude that both are like illusions;
And that is why we do not fall into error,
And the things experienced by beings in the world exist! (170cd)
If someone then said, “How does your system account for causes producing results?,” we would reply that we apply analysis to any claim that causes
and results exist verifiably with a makeup of their own, and thus we conclude that all things are produced by nothing other than mistaken imputation and that both causes and results are, therefore, non-arisen like
illusions; but that phenomena, which are the objects of thoughts and are
like the hairs observed by someone with an eye disorder, are not to be analyzed [such that common consensus, upon which the conventional level
rests, would be completely invalidated].
That is why we Madhyamikas do not fall into the error of supposing
cause and result to meet or not meet. And it is why we avoid invalidating
the claim that the appearances of unexamined things experienced by
beings in the world exist in their eyes.
438
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-KR$?-}-3-.%-=/-$*A?, .%-0R-=-35%?-0-:$R.-0, .J?-/?/-:LA/-.-3A-:I<-2, *R/-$8/-;%-2!/-0-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
?/-:LA/-:.A?-?/-.L%-L-U.-/?-:LA/-/3-3-U.-0<,,
;A/-8J?-*J?-0-:.A<-/A-HR.-=:%-:I<-2-3-;A/-/3,, 171 !#
o-:V?-U.-0-.%-3-U.-0-$%-=?-*J-8J?-5?-0-.J-HR.-=:%-35%?-?R-8J?o-:V?-%R-2R-*A.-GA?-P2-0-:$R$-0:A-?/-:LA/-:.A?-?/-.L%-L-.%-U./?-?/-:LA/-/3-3-U.-0<-:LA/, U.-/?-;A/-/-.J-.$-/?-0-$&A$-0?,-..-3J.-0<-:I<, 3-U.-0?-;A/-/-?/-:LA/-3A-/?-0:3-;%-/-,3?&.-?/-:LA/-0<-:I<-8J?-}<-2>.-0:A-*J?-0-:.A<-/A-HR.-=:%-:I<-23-;A/-/3, gR$-0-$*A?-0R-%%?-/?-gR$-0-$?3-0:%-;R.-0-3-;A/-/R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
$%-5K-.J-{.-5-8A%-<%-KR$?-#R-/-i3-:)R3?-0,,
.J-5K-HR.-GA?-?/-.L%-?/-/A-:LA/-0<-/?-3-;A/,, 171 $%
$%-$A-5K-o-:V?-U.-0-.%-3-U.-0<-2*J.-&J?-.J-{.-5-8A%-lR.-0-.J-=2g$?-0-:.A-35%?-0?-<%-$A-?/-.L%-L-:LA/-LJ.-GA-KR$?-#R-/-i30<-:)R3?-0-.J:A-5K-.2-3-0-HR.-GA?-?/-:LA/-IA?-?/-.L%-L-o-:V?-
The Absence of Personal Self
439
The second, dispelling similarities, has two parts:
1) The position of the opponent
2) The rebuttal
The first, the position of the opponent, has three parts:
1) Stating the similarities
2) That there is therefore no refutation
3) The presentation of other faults
The first of these
They counter, “Does this refutation refute the case in question
By making contact with the point refuted or not?
Whichever you answer, wouldn’t your own objection apply?” (171ab)
[The Realists] may say, “[The analysis using] the statement, ‘The result
arises either through contact with its cause or without such contact’ applies
just as much to you Madhyamikas too. Does your refutation of the inherent existence of cause and result refute that by making contact with the
point refuted or by not meeting it thus? If you answer that they meet, both
would share an identical factor and would, therefore, be indistinguishable;
and, if they do not meet, there would either be no refutation possible or
everything would be refuted. Would such fallacies to which you previously
objected [in our case] not apply to you as well? And, except these two ways
of thinking about [how the refutation could occur], there is no third possibility.”
[556] The second, that there is therefore no refutation
“To argue like this only defeats your own position.
This refutation of yours is useless; it cannot refute.” (171cd)
[The opponent continues:] When you formulate your refutation
and debate by saying, “Is a result produced by meeting its cause or
not?,” this examination applies equally to yourselves and thus you
only defeat your own position. And so, you Madhyamikas cannot
refute the point to be refuted, namely, the inherent existence of
440
The Moon of Wisdom
<%-28A/-IA?-P2-0-?/-:LA/-0<-/?-0-3-;A/-+J, HR.-GA-?/-:LA/-*A.?/-K%-2:A->$?-GA?-/-o-:V?-<%-28A/-IA?-P2-0<-:I<-<R,,
$?3-0-/A,
$%-KA<-<%-$A-5B$-=:%-,=-2-35%?-0:A-v$-(R.-GA?,,
<A$?-0-3J.-0<-.%R?-3,:-.$-=-{<-:.J2?-.J-;A-KA<,,
HR.-/A-*J-2R-.3-0?-28J.-3A-:I<-8A%-$%-$A-KA<,,
HR.-=-<%-KR$?-3J.-0?-?/-&A-KA/-.-cR=-2:%-;A/,, 172
;%-*R/-:.A-v<-;R.-.J, $%-$A-KA<-.2-3-0-HR.-<%-$A-?/-:LA/-IA-5B$=:%-U.-3-U.-GA-,=-2-35%?-0:A-v$-(R.-?/-:LA/-v<-$%-$A?-<A$?0-3J.-0<-.%R?-0R-$/?-0:A-o-:V?-=-U.-3-U.-2g$?-0:A-|R-/?-.%R?0R-3,:-.$-=-{<-0-:.J2?-0<-LJ.-0-;A/-+J, 3-U.-0<-35%?-0?-3U.-0-,3?-&.-2*J.-0<-:I<-8J?-0-:.A-<A$?-0-:,.-w/-3A/-0:A-KA<+J, 3-U.-0<-35%?-G%-3-U.-0<-#2-=J/-IA?-<%-;=-/-$/?-0:At$?-:SJ/-0-.%-, 3-U.-0<-3A$-$A?-<%-;=-/-$/?-0:A-$9$?-29%2?-3-U.-0-,3?-&.-GA?-:V?-2-3A-2*J.-0-3A/-0-v<-o?-G%-3-U.0<-:V?-2-2*J.-.-9A/-G%-, 3-U.-0-,3?-&.-3A-2*J.-GA, :V?-2<%-2-#R-/-*J.-0<-LJ.-0:A-KA<-.%-, .J:A-KA<-HR.-/A-*J-2R-.3-0?-28J.0<-3A-:I<-2-#?-=J/-0<-LJ.-&A%-, .J<-3-9.-HR.-/A-?/-&A-KA/-.-cR=2:%-;A/-+J, $%-KA<-HR.-=:%-KR$?-$+/-3J.-&A%-, $8/-KR$?-?J=2<-LJ.-0?-.J:A-KA<-?/-&A-KA/-.-cR=-2-0-28.-$.-GA-(J.-43-=?-%=-2:V?-2-3J.-0:A-cR=-2<-9.-.R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
441
causes and results. Implicit in our refutation of your refutation is
that causes and results do exist inherently.
The third, the presentation of other faults
“Through spurious arguments whose consequences apply to your own
words
You deny everything there is without any logical credence to what you say;
And that is the reason no credible being would ever agree with what
you say.
And because you take no stance of your own at all, you are nothing at all
but sophists.” (172)
[The opponent continues:] There are also other faults. Through spurious
arguments, i.e., pseudo-refutations, whose consequences concerning
meeting or not meeting are equally applicable to your own words of refutation, you deny everything there is by examining the meeting or lack of
any meeting between results and their actual causes, but there is no logical necessity to what you say. This is because your statement, “Since everything would be equivalent in not meeting, anything could be produced
without a meeting [between itself as result and something else as its cause]”
is not a tenable argument. This is because, even though [everything] would
be similar in not meeting, some things that do not meet do produce results.
A magnet can attract its proper object, a piece of metal, without touching
it. And the eye can perceive its proper object, forms, without eye and form
touching each other. And in the same way, causes produce results without
the two meeting, but they do not produce everything they do not meet,
only their proper results.
For these reasons, credible beings would never agree with you or accept
your conclusions. Not only that, you are also sophists. Since you take no
stance of your own but just destroy the positions of others, you are nothing but sophists whose tiring and fruitless arguments have no other purpose than to provide you with some amusement.
442
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-,=-2-35%?-0:A-o-35/-2!/, <%-28A/-3J.-G%-?/-:LA/IA?-?/-:LA/-/?-0<-.0J?-12, $8/-IA-:.R.-0-3-gR$?-0<-.$$-0LJ.-0-3A-<A$?, =3-29%-2+%-/?-=3-%/-IA-:)A$-gJ/-=-$/R.-0<-3A<A$?, ?/-:LA/-IA-=3-$8/-;%-o-(J<-gR$?-0<-L-2-.%-s,
.%-0R-/A,
?/-:LA/-0?-?/-.L%-L-3-U.-?/-/A-:LA/-LJ.-.3,,
:R/-+J-U.-/?-;A/-8J?-5?-9A/-*J?-0-:.A<-$%-=,,
%J?-0<-KR$?-;R.-.J-=-:I<-IA-2.$-=-KR$?-:.A-/A,,
;R.-0-3A/-0?-,=-2<-:I<-2-:.A-/A-YA.-3-;A/,, 173
?/-:LA/-0?-?/-.L%-L-3-U.-0<-?/-:LA/-LJ.-.3, :R/-+J-U.-/?;A/-&J?-<%-5B$-=:%-,=-2-35%?-0:A-v$-(R.-;A/-0<-5?-9A/-0:A-*J?0-:.A<-$%-=-?/-:LA/-.L%-<%-28A/-IA?-P2-0<-5-2:A-%J?-0<-KR$?;R.-.J-=-:I<-IA, .2-3-0-2.$-=-?/-:LA/-.L%-$.R.-/?-P2-0:AKR$?-:.A-/A-;R.-0-3A/-0?-<%-5B$-=-,=-2<-:I<-2-35%?-0-:.A-/A-YA.0-3-;A/-+J, ?/-:LA/-.L%-U.-3-U.-$%-=?-G%-?/-K%-2<-5-2?3-3ALJ.-0:A-KA<,
The Absence of Personal Self
443
[557] The second, the rebuttal, has five parts:
1) The grounds on which the equivalency of the consequences is based
2) The proof using an example to show that a refutation is able to refute
although it lacks inherent nature
3) That it is unreasonable to seek to refute others without understanding
their assertions
4) That it is unreasonable to discard a positive approach and take the illadvised route of invalidating common consensus
5) That our other forms of refutation should be understood extensively
The first of these
Our query, “Does this refutation refute the point
By making contact with the point refuted or not?”
Does, as you say, involve the fault you mention above
But would only apply to those who take an entrenched position;
Since we do no such thing, this consequence could not apply. (173)
[Our worthy opponent’s] statement, “[Madhyamikas,] does your refutation refute what is to be refuted by making contact with it or by not making contact with it?” does indeed point to the fault mentioned above
[where you call our words] “spurious arguments whose consequences
equally apply to your own words,” but this fault would apply to those who
take the entrenched position of claiming the refutation and what is to be
refuted to exist with an inherent nature. Since, however, we Madhyamikas
do not take any position which would claim the refutation and what is to
be refuted to have objective existence, we neither think nor state refutations involving either contact or lack of contact between the refutation and
what is being refuted; so the consequence of which you speak could not
possibly apply to our words.61
444
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
)A-v<-HR.-GA?-*A-3:A-.GA=-:#R<-=-;R.-H.-0<-i3?,,
$9$?-2f/-=-;%-$9?-29%-=-?R$?-i3?-5K-3,R%-:I<-=,,
*A-3-.%-/A-$9$?-2f/-i3-0<-U.-.%-3-U.-0<,,
3A-<A$?-3R.-GA-2gJ/-/?-,-~.-43-8A$-:L%-:I<-8A%-,, 174
3A-2.J/-28A/-.:%-<%-$A-L.-28A/-36K?-0<-212-L:A-KA<,,
.J-/A-;R.-0-)A-v<-.J-28A/-:.A<-;%->J?-<2-$.R.,,
.%-2<-L-=-/?-0-3,R%-2<-:I<-2:A-$+/-5B$?-/A,,
:,.-0-.%-V=-=?-G%-212-L-gR$?-8J?->J?-0<-L,, 175
)A-v<-HR.-GA?-*A-3:A-.GA=-:#R<-=-;R.-0:A-$9?-29%-2:A-H.-0<-i3?(-?%?-0<-><-2:A-*A-3:A-$9$?-2f/-=-;%-$9?-29%-2-=-?R$?-0i3?-.J:A-5K-3,R%-2<-:I<-=, .J:A-5K-*A-3-.%-/A-$9$?-2f/-2gJ/-0:A(-i3-0<-U.-/?-$9$?-2f/-:(<-/-/3-3#<-*A-3-3J.-0<-:I<-2-.%, 3-U.-0<-:VJ=-3J.-.-:(<-/-.J-$*A?-2<-m?-$8/-IA?-(R.-0<-;%:(<-2?-.J.-/-$9$?-2f/-L-2-&%-9.-G%-3A-<A$?-3R.-GA, 3-.J./-(-?%?-0-.%-*A-3:A-nJ/-=-2gJ/-/?-$9$?-2f/-.-.3A$?-0-,-~.43-8A$-:L%-2<-:I<-8A%-, *A-3:A-$9$?-2f/-=-*A-3:A-<%-28A/-3J.G%-*A-3-$9?-)A-43-.-9-2<-gR$?-0-%J?-LJ.-.-:I<-2-28A/-/R,, .J?-/?/-:LA/-.L%-U.-3-U.-GA-<%-28A/-$%-.-;%-3-P2-28A/-?/-:LA/-IA?.L%-L-K%-2<-:)A$-gJ/-.-,-~.-:L%-2:A-.0J-2>.-3-,$-0-*A.-.%-,
a<-;%-3J-=R%-
The Absence of Personal Self
445
[563] The second, the proof using an example to show that a refutation is
able to refute although it lacks inherent nature
It is just as, during eclipse and its aftermath,
You can see the changes happening to the sun,
Even in a reflection, although indeed
It is not feasible for this to happen
Through the sun and reflection meeting or not, and yet
The mere convention applies due to dependence. (174)
Although not real, [the reflection] exists and is used
To beautify the face; in a similar way,
We can see that logical reasoning can be used
To purify prajna’s face and should be acknowledged
To be that which brings understanding of a thesis,
Although the process involved is untenable. (175)
You can see the changes happening to the sun due to an eclipse, and these
are visible even in the sun’s reflection appearing in clear water during the
eclipse and its aftermath. If the reflection were appearing due to an actual
meeting62 between the sun, the reflection, and the water serving as the
basis, the sun would not have been in the sky at the time. If the reflection
were appearing without any meeting or connection [between sun and
water], it would be able to appear even when they were completely out of
touch due to some other substance.63 So, if analyzed, it is, indeed, in no
way feasible for a reflection to actually happen; and yet, when not analyzed, the mere convention, which is experienced as a reflection, applies in
dependence on the conditions of clear water and the sun. And the sun’s
reflection, though not the sun, definitely conveys the message that a solar
eclipse of determinate dimensions has apparently taken place.
Therefore, while the refutation and what is being refuted do not inherently exist at all by virtue of [the former] actually meeting [the latter] or
not, the example just presented illustrates how the convention of a refutation refuting what is to be refuted occurs in the world.
446
The Moon of Wisdom
/%-.-><-2:A-L.-28A/-IA-$9$?-2f/-L.-28A/-*A.-.-3A-2.J/-28A/.:%-.J-=-2gJ/-/?-<%-$A-L.-28A/-36K?-0<-212-0<-L-2:A-KA<-.$9$?-2f/-.J-/A-L.-28A/-36K?-0<-L-2:A-gJ/-.-3-.J.-0<-;R.-0-&Av<-.J-28A/-.-$8/-:)A$-gJ/-=-P$?-0-:)A$-gJ/-IA?-#?-]%?-0:A<A$?-0?-.J-*A.-GA-:.R.-0-.$$-0:A-{2?-:.A<-;%-cR=-2-$%-$A?->J?<2-GA-$.R.-3A->J?-0:A-SA-3-.%-2<-L-2-=-<%-28A/-IA?-!R%-0:A-?/:LA/-IA?-$8/-%R<-?/-.L%-L-?/-:LA/-0-.%-212-L-12-0:A-/?-03,R%-2<-I<-0:A-KA<, $8/-P$?-GA-$+/-5B$?-/A-<%-28A/-IA?-P20:A-g$?-5=-IA-:,.-0-.%-V=-2-=?-G%-212-L-gR$?-0<-LJ.-.R-8J?>J?-0<-L:R,,
$?3-0-/A,
$=-+J-<%-$A-212-L-$R-LJ.-$+/-5B$?-.%R?-P2-.%-,,
.%R?-?-$R-L-*A.-:I<-212-L:A-%R-2R:%-;R.-:I<-/,,
U.-0-=-?R$?-<A$?-0-*J-2<-.R<-2<-:I<-8A$-/,,
.J-;%-;R.-0-3A/-0?-HJ.-GA-;A-(.-:2:-8A$-;A/,, 176
$8/-;%-$=-+J-.2-3-0-=-<%-=$?-GA-212-L-$R-LJ.-GA-$+/-5B$?.%R?-0R<-P2-0-.%-, $+/-5B$?-GA?-.%R?-?-$R-L-*A.-.-:I<-2:A-/?;=-IA-212-L:A-%R-2R-*A.-GA-P2-0:%-;R.-0<-:I<-/, 212-L-12-LJ.U.-0-.%-3-U.-0-=-?R$?-GA-<A$?-0-*J-2<-.R<-8A%-.<-2-.J?-?/-:LA/0<-:I<-2-
The Absence of Personal Self
447
Although the reflection of a face appearing in a mirror is not the real face,
that reflection, when not analyzed, exists as a support for beautifying your
face and can be used that way. Similarly, here—in the context of refuting
whatever is asserted using reasoning commonly known and accepted by
others in the world—it is evident that arguments can be used to purify the
ignorance staining the face of prajna by refuting what is to be refuted and
proving what is to be proven in the eyes of others through refutations that
are empty of an inherent nature. And thus, logical reasoning relying on
common consensus should be acknowledged to be that which brings [correct] understanding of a thesis,64 although the process involved is untenable as a system of proof having an inherent nature.
[568] The third, that it is unreasonable to seek to refute others65 without
understanding their assertions
If, in our system, reasons which bring understanding
Of a given thesis actually existed,
And the contents of the thesis to be understood,
If these existed actually as well,
The need for these to meet or not would apply.
Since that is not so, your statement is utterly futile. (176)
To look at this even more closely, in our system, the Madhyamaka, if the
reason(s) enabling understanding of a given thesis actually existed, and, if
the contents of the thesis—that is, the points capable of being understood
by virtue of the reason(s) given—existed actually as well, the requirement
that thesis and proof either met or did not would strictly apply to the reasoning, for that to comprise a refutation.
448
The Moon of Wisdom
8A$-/, #R-2R-&$-=-%R-2R-*A.-GA?-P2-0:A-g$?-?R$?-.J-;%-;R.-0-3A/0?-HR.-GA-<%-$A-=$?-3A-<A$?-0?-KJ-3<-L?-0-.J-*A.-GA?-$8/-IA-<A$?0<-2eR.-0-=-3A-<A$?-?R-8J?-:$R.-0-/A-#R-2R-&$-=-*R/-2eR.-o-9.-.J-;A(.-:2:-8A$-$A?-5-2-;A/-+J, .0J<-/-<2-<A2-&/-IA-0->.-GA?-<2-<A2&/-3A/-0-=-3-$/R.-0-28A/-<%-28A/-3J.-0-=-3-.J.-0<-o-:V?-:)R$0-/-<%-28A/-.%-2&?-0:A-o-:V?-=-2eR.-0:A-*R/-2!R.-0?-$-=-$/R.,
28A-0-/A,
.%R?-i3?-3,:-.$-.%R?-0R-3J.-0<-gR$?-?-$8$-0<-/A,,
/?-0<-(J?-a-)A-v-.J-v<-<%-28A/-$8/-.$-=,,
#R%-.-(.-0<-2.J-]$-+-/A-/?-0-3-;A/-/R,,
gR$-$J-%/-0:A-S-2?-:)A$-gJ/-&A-!J-:.A<-2&R=-LJ.,, 177
+-3-.%-kA-=3-$9$?-2f/-?R$?-:)A$-gJ/-<%-=-P2-0:A-.0J?-:#R<:.?-GA-.%R?-0R-i3?-3,:-.$-.%R?-0R-3J.-0<-gR$?-?-$8$-0<-/A-/?0<-(J?-a-2-)A-v-2-.J-v<-.%R?-0R-i3?-<%-28A/-;R.-0<-$8/-.$-=-#R%.-(.-0<-2.J-]$-+-/A-:6B/-0<-/?-0:A-,2?-;R.-0-3-;A/-/R-!J, .J-v<12-0-=-$*A?-!-=-P$?-0:A-.0J-3J.-0:A-KA<, .J?-/-HR.-/A-:)A$-gJ/-IAP$?-0-=-$/R.-0:A-(J.-.-?-8A$-$A?-j.-0-;A/-G%-HR.-<%-z/-*J?-GA-*R/3R%?-0-.<-YA/-v<-gR$-0:A-&2?-GA?-$+3?-0:A-#<-!/-+-2+$?-0:A-
The Absence of Personal Self
449
Since, however, it is not the case that we think the evidence and so on66
exist with an essential component, your system is the one that has been
defeated, because it is illogical. So, your statement, “The formulations in
your reasoning are illogical,” is utterly futile. And now you have exhausted
all avenues of accusation as to our [supposed] faults.
To illustrate this, the hairs seen by someone with an eye disorder do not
invalidate [what is seen by] someone without this disorder. And similarly,
if one posits causes and results without analyzing their lack of substantial
nature, one’s presentation will involve the fault of speaking of causes and
results as being substantial in nature; so how could this invalidate [our reasoning]?
[570] The fourth, that it is unreasonable to discard a positive approach and
take the ill-advised route of invalidating common consensus
You can very easily come to understand
That there is nothing at all that exists as a thing.
But it’s not just as easy to get someone else to see
That things have inherent makeup; it cannot be done!
Why go about confusing the world like this,
Using a web of misguided speculation? (177)
It is very easy to arrive at an understanding of how nothing at all in samsara or nirvana exists as a thing. Just use examples that are valid in the world
itself and that illustrate that all of these are just like illusions, dreams, and
reflections and so forth.
But it’s not just as easy to get someone else to see that things exist with
an inherent makeup. In fact, there is no way to prove such a viewpoint. It
cannot be done, because common consensus provides no examples that
would prove it to either [oneself or others].
So, who has given you the task of invalidating common consensus in
the world? And why confuse the world still further like this, with notions
of true existence? It already has plenty of wrong ideas about things! Why
go about ensnaring beings in a trap, using a web of misguided speculation,
complete imputation that only adds to their silkworm-like instinctive
states of affliction and the enclosure of thoughts in which they are
enveloped. Even if you do not succeed in confusing them further, they have
450
The Moon of Wisdom
gR$-$J-%/-0:A-S-2:A-o-=-5.-0?-:)A$-gJ/-:.A-}<-.%R?-0R-=-=R$-0<-gR$0-=?-.-.%-;%-&A-!J-:.A<-2.J/-:6B/-IA?-2&R=-2<-LJ.-.J-3-2&R=-G%,R$-3J.-/?-3R?-:6B/-IA?-2&R=-+J, 2&R=-/?-/R-2?-:#R<-2-#$-2}=IA-o-35S:C-j-[R%-S$-0R<-:#R<-:.$-0-<J-~A%-eJ-2:A-KA<,
s-0-/A,
?/-:LA/-z$-3-$R%-.-2!/-0-;%-/A->J?-L?-/?,,
U.-0-=-?R$?-KR$?-GA-=/-IA-(J.-.-:.A<-$+%-L,,
?/-&A-KA/-.-cR=-2-0-;%-)A-v<-;R.-3A/-0,,
.J-{.-}<-2>.-z$-3-KR$?-:.A-*A.-GA?-gR$?-0<-L,, 178
.J?-/-.%R?-0R-<%-28A/-IA?-P2-0<-:.R.-0-=-(R?-GA-2.$-3J.-!R/-0-gJ/:L%-i3-0<-28$-0-.%-, $%-9$-$A?-2.$-3J.-!R/-0-2gJ/-/?$.$?-0-i3-0<-28$-0-.%-, 3,:-28A:A-*J-2-2!$-0-.%-, i3-2./IA?-.J.-0-?R$?-?/-:LA/-z$-3-$R%-.-2!/-0-;%-/A->J?-L?-/?-+J-S/0<-L?-/?-&A-o-:V?-U.-/?-*J.-0<-LJ.-.3, 3-U.-0<-*J.-0<-LJ.&J?-0-=-?R$?-0:A-KR$?-GA-=/-IA-(J.-.-?/-:LA/-.L%-?R$?-3,:-28A<3A-*J-8A%-, <A$?-0-i3-2./-IA?-3A-fJ.-0?-U.-3-U.-2g$?-/?-?/-3A:LA/-G%-, 3-.J.-0<-$8/-IA-=R$-gR$-?J=-LJ.-.-?/-:LA/-/R-8J?-:.A<;%-?/-:LA/-0:%-KJ-!J-2eR.-0<-L:R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
451
been confused from beginningless time by fixation on conceptual elaborations. Since they are crazed by confusion, one should develop compassion for those caught up in the vicious circle of samsara and tossed around
in the violent waves of the ocean of its suffering.
[572] The fifth, that our other forms of refutation should be understood
extensively
Once the above refutations have been understood,
They are meant to be used to answer objections raised
Regarding there being a meeting and so on and so forth.
This is not a form of sophistry at all.
The other previous statements we have made
Should be understood in light of this position. (178)
Thus, those who claim things exist with an inherent makeup should
develop an understanding of our other refutations presented above and
bear them well in mind. They include the teaching on interdependent
origination that demonstrates the lack of existence of self-entity in phenomena; the teaching on the lack of existence of a personal self presented
through our treatment of referential imputation; the refutation of the four
possible cases of arising; and the sevenfold analysis.
Once these are understood, they are meant to be used to answer objections like those raised [above by the opponents’ challenge, “Does your refutation meet what is refuted or not?,” which in turn is related to the
question], “Are results produced through meeting their causes or without
meeting them?”
Because the refutation, what is refuted, and so forth do not arise in any
of the four possible ways and are not found through the seven-point analysis, examining them to determine whether they meet or not will result in
excluding the very existence of a refutation! If, however, these are not analyzed, a refutation can be formulated to dispel the incorrect thinking of
others. When we present refutations, this is the point.
452
The Moon of Wisdom
3,:-28A-.%-i3-0-2./-.%-U.-3-U.-?R$?-2g$?-/-*J-2-.%-fJ.-0-.%?/-:LA/-0-3A-:P2-G%-, 3-.J.-0:A-,-~.-.-*J-fJ.-?/-:LA/-0-3A:$=-=R,, ?/-&A-KA/-.-cR=-2-0-;%-)A-v<-;R.-0-3-;A/-0-!J, $8/-IAgR$-0-.R/-=-3A-$/?-0<-2^R$-0-43-=?-<%-KR$?-28$-/?-$8/-KR$??J=-2<-LJ.-0-3-;A/-+J, 2?=-L:A-.%R?-0R-&%-9.-G%-3-.3A$?-0:AKA<, .J-v-2-.J-{.-?R$?-}<-2>.-GA-?/-:LA/-z$-3-i3?-/A, 2.$-=KR$?-:.A-/A-;R.-0-3-;A/-0?-,=-2<-:I<-2-:.A-/A-YA.-0-3-;A/, 8J??R$?-KR$?-:.A-*A.-GA?-gR$?-0<-L:R,,
The Absence of Personal Self
453
If the four possible ways things could arise are examined, [one sees that]
arising does not occur at all. If one examines things in terms of the seven
points, they cannot be found. If one examines whether a refutation meets
what is being refuted or not, no refutation exists. But there is no contradiction involved [in saying that], as conventions, things arise, they are
detectable, and there are refutations.
This is not a form of sophistry at all, but simply a matter of correcting
those ideas of others which are not founded on fact. It is not a matter of
toppling the positions of others and setting up our own. This is because
there is not even the slightest thing observable that could serve as the matter to be toppled.
Our other previous statements comprising the refutations given should
be understood in light of this position, namely, that we have no position,
so whatever absurd consequence someone might try to draw [on the basis
of our assumed position] could not possibly apply.
Based on the explanations and guidance of Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso
Rinpoche and Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, translated by Jim Scott with
the previous translations of this section by Elizabeth Callahan and Ari
Goldfield as a working basis. 4th of July, 2002. Latest revision, Spring,
2005.
$*A?-0-/A,
2.$-3J.-:.A-/A-:PR-2-i3?-.PR=-KA<,,
(R?-.%-$%-9$-.LJ-2-i3-$*A?-$?%?,, 179 !#
.J?-/-2.$-3J.-0-!R/-&A%-!R%-0-*A.-GA-.LJ-2-2eR.-/, 2.$-3J.-:.A-/A3.R<-2#-/-2&R3-w/-:.?-GA?-(R?-.%-$%-9$-$A-2.$-3J.-0:A-.LJ-2?i3-0-$*A?-?-$?%?-+J, $.=-L:A-:PR-2-i3?-*R/-3R%?-0-.%->J?-1A2=?-i3-0<-.PR=-2<-L-2:A-(J.-GA-KA<-<R,,
$*A?-0-=-353?-.R<-2-.%-, .R/-2>.-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
.J-v<-!R/-0?-a<-;%-:.A-*A.-/A,,
$.=-L-i3?-=-KJ-!J-i3-3%-$?%?,, 179 $%
.J- v<- !R/- 0?- a<- ;%- 2.$- 3J.- $*A?- 0- :.A- *A.- /A- $.=- L- i3?- =- KJ-!J28A-.%-, 2&-S$-?R$?-i3-0-3%-0R<-$?%?-?R,,
Part V:
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
The second,1 the summary of the topic
In order to liberate beings, this lack of self-entity
Is taught to have two classifications, that of phenomena and of
individuals. (179ab)
To teach the absence of a self-entity, in other words to formulate the classifications of emptiness, the Bhagavan taught this lack of self-entity in its
briefest form to be of two types, namely the nonexistence of a personal self
and the lack of self-entity in phenomena, because this enables sentient
beings who are to be tamed to become fully liberated from the afflictive and
cognitive veils.
The second,2 the explanation treating of the sixteen types of emptiness
1) Connecting the previous point to the present topic
2) The actual explanation
1) Connecting the previous point to the present topic
Having presented this, the Buddha further taught his students
By subdividing this subject matter into many categories. (179cd)
Having presented this, the Buddha further taught his students by subdividing
this subject matter, i.e., the two types of lack of self-entity, into many categories, four, sixteen and so on.
456
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-3.R<-2!/, o?-0<-2>., .R/-2#-2-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
3R?-.%-2&?-0<-!R%-0-*A.,,
2&-S$-2>.-/?-3.R<-2#?-+J,,
a<-;%-28A<-2>.-.J-.$-/A,,
,J$-(J/-.-;%-28J.-0-;A/,, 180
:.A<-!R%-*A.-*A->-=-3.R-=J-2o.-3<-*A->-.G?-$&A$-=-$?%?->A%-, .J=-2gJ/-/?-:1$?-?J%-$A?-*A->:A-P%?-%J?-36.-=, 2o.-!R%-0-.%-o.#J-i3?-=?-!R%-*A.-2&-S$-+-$?%?->A%-, .J-=-2gJ/-/?-.2?-3,:-.%, 2o.-!R%-.R/-2#-?R$?-=?-2&-S$-+-P%?-%J?-36.-&A%-, 3.R-=J-3%=?, ,R-3<-!R%-*A.-2&-S$-.%-, ;%-$.-.-!R%-*A.-28A-$?%?->A%-, .J:A.R/-28A-0R-2&-S$-+-:.-2<-.$R%?-+J, :1$?-0-PR=-#J-.%-, $/R.:)R3?- 3#/- 0R- ?R$?- GA?- ,- 3- 28A- .%R?- 0R- 3J.- 0:A- %R- 2R- *A.- !R%- 0- *A.- .#.-G%-, :.A<-aR2-.0R/-IA?-.%-0R<-2&-S$-.%-, ;%-28A-2>.-0:A3.R:C-.R/-2&-S$-o?-0<-2>.-0-.%-, 28A-/A-3.R<-2#?-0<-.$R%?-+J,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
457
2) The actual explanation
1) A brief presentation
2) An expanded explanation
3) A summary
1) A brief presentation
Having taught sixteen types of emptiness
As the elaborate presentation, [the Buddha] further gave
A concise explanation mentioning four;
These are the purport of the Mahayana. (180)
The twenty types of emptiness mentioned here are all taught in the Sutra
of Eight Chapters. Relying on that, Vimuktasena and the master Haribhadra list the types of emptiness as twenty. However, the Eight Thousand Verse
[Prajnaparamita] and the tantras teach sixteen types of emptiness. Based
on that, Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes and [Haribhadra’s]
Digest of the Eight Thousand Verse Prajnaparamita set the number of types
of emptiness at sixteen. In the Sutra of Many Chapters, [the Buddha] initially teaches sixteen types of emptiness and again, separately, teaches four.
According to Vimuktasena, Nodjom Khenpo, and others, these four are
to be included within the sixteen. They consider them to be contained
within the emptiness of an inherent essence in the nonexistence of entities. Here, however, the master [Chandrakirti] sees the Buddha’s intention
in first explaining sixteen and then again four in the sutras as a way of first
giving an expanded explanation and then a concise.
458
The Moon of Wisdom
<2- :LR<- $8/- ;%- L%- (2- ?J3?- .0:A- ,J$- 0- (J/- 0R- /A:.A-v-!J, /%-!R%-0-*A.-.%-, KA-!R%-0-*A.-.%-, KA-/%!R%-0-*A.-.%-, !R%-0-*A.-!R%-0-*A.-.%-, (J/-0R-!R%-0*A.-.%-, .R/-.3-0-!R%-0-*A.-.%-, :.?-L?-!R%-0-*A..%-, :.?-3-L?-!R%-0-*A.-.%-, 3,:-=?-:.?-0-!R%0-*A.-.%-, ,R$-3-.%-,-3-3J.-0-!R%-0-*A.-.%-, .R<-23J.-0-!R%-0-*A.-.%-, <%-28A/-!R%-0-*A.-.%-, (R?,3?-&.-!R%-0-*A.-.%-, <%-$A-35/-*A.-!R%-0-*A.-.%, 3A-.3A$?-0-!R%-0-*A.-.%-, .%R?-0R-3J.-0:A-%R-2R-*A.!R%-0-*A.-.R,
8J?-3R?-0-.%-2&?-0<-!R%-0-*A.-2&-S$-+-2>.-/?,
<2-:LR<-$8/-;%-.%R?-0R-/A-.%R?-0R?-!R%-%R-, .%R?-0R3J.-0-/A-.%R?-0R-3J.-0?-!R%-%R-, <%-28A/-/A-<%-28A/IA?-!R%-%R-, $8/-IA-.%R?-0R-/A-$8/-IA-.%R?-0R?-!R%-%R,
8J?-3.R<-2#?-+J-a<-;%-!R%-*A.-28A<-2>.-&A%-, !R%-*A.-*A->-0R-.J-.$/A-,J$-(J/-IA-=3-.-28J.-0-;A/-+J, >J?-1A2-GA-$*J/-0R<-(R?-GA-2.$-3J.o?-0<-2!/-0-;A/-0:A-KA<,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
459
The following is presented in the Ashtadashasahasrikaprajnaparamitasutra:
Subhuti, you of perfect resources! What is the great vehicle of
the bodhisattvas? It is this. It is the emptiness of the inner, the
emptiness of the outer, the emptiness of the outer and inner, the
emptiness of emptiness, the emptiness of the vast, the emptiness of genuine reality, the emptiness of the composite, the
emptiness of the noncomposite, the emptiness of that which
transcends extremes, the emptiness of that which lacks beginning and end, the emptiness of that which should not be
rejected, the emptiness of the true nature, the emptiness of all
phenomena, the emptiness of defining characteristics, the
emptiness of the imperceptible, and the emptiness of an inherent essence in the nonexistence of entities.
Having taught sixteen types of emptiness as the elaborate presentation, [the
Buddha] further gave a concise explanation mentioning four types of emptiness:
Subhuti, furthermore, entities are empty of entities; nonentities are empty of nonentities; the true nature is empty of the true
nature; and the entity that is otherwise is empty of the entity
that is otherwise.
These twenty types of emptiness are the purport of the path of the Mahayana,
because they present in an expanded fashion the lack of a self-entity in phenomena, the remedy for the cognitive obscurations.
460
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-3R?-0-.%-2&?-0?-2&-S$-+-2>.-0-.%-, 3.R<-2#?-+J28A<-2>.-0-$*A?, .%-0R-=-/%-.%-, KA-.%-, KA-/%-.%-, !R%-0-*A..%-, (J/-0R-.%-, .R/-.3-0-.%-, :.?-L?-.%-, :.?-3-L?-.%-, 3,:=?-:.?-0-.%-, ,R$-3-.%-, ,-3-3J.-0-.%-, .R<-2-3J.-0-.%-, <%28A/-.%-, (R?-,3?-&.-.%-, <%-$A-35/-*A.-.%-, 3A-.3A$?-0-.%-,
.%R?-0R-3J.-0:A-%R-2R-*A.-!R%-0-*A.-o?-0<-2>.-0-.%-2&-S$-$A-.%-0R-/A,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
461
2) An expanded explanation
1) The elaborate explanation treating of the sixteen types of emptiness
2) The concise explanation treating of the four
1) The elaborate explanation treating of
the sixteen types of emptiness
1) The emptiness of the inner
2) The emptiness of the outer
3) The emptiness of the outer and inner
4) The emptiness of emptiness
5) The emptiness of the vast
6) The emptiness of genuine reality
7) The emptiness of the composite
8) The emptiness of the noncomposite
9) The emptiness of that which transcends extremes
10) The emptiness of that which lacks beginning and end
11) The emptiness of that which should not be rejected
12) The emptiness of the true nature
13) The emptiness of all phenomena
14) The emptiness of defining characteristics
15) The emptiness of the imperceptible
16) The emptiness of an inherent essence in the nonexistence of entities
462
The Moon of Wisdom
$%-KA<-.J-;A-<%-28A/-.J-,,
;A/-KA<-3A$-/A-3A$-$A?-!R%-,,
.J-28A/-i-2-$-.%-tJ,,
=?-.%-;A.-G%-2~.-0<-L,, 181
,J<-9$-$/?-0-3-;A/-.%-,,
:)A$-0-3-;A/-*A.-GA-KA<,,
3A$-=-?R$?-0-S$-0R-;A,,
<%-28A/-3J.-*A.-$%-;A/-0,,
.J-/A-/%-!R%-*A.-.-:.R.,, 182
3.R-=?, $%-.$-/%-!R%-0-*A.-.-:I<-2-/%-$A-(R?-i3?-$%-.$-;A/-&J-/,
/%-$A-(R?-i3?-8J?-L-2-/A-3A$-.%-i-2-.%-$-.%-tJ-.%-=?-.%-;A.-.J, .J-=,J<-9$-+-$/?-0-3-;A/-0-.%-, :)A$-0-3-;A/-0-*A.-GA-KA<-3A$-/A-3A$-$A?!R%-!J, .J-&A:A-KA<-8J-/, .J:A-<%-28A/-.J-;A/-0:A-KA<-8J?-?R$?-GA-.R/-$%-$AKA<-3A$-.J:A-<%-28A/-!R%-0-*A.-.J-;A/-0:A-KA<-3A$-/A-3A$-$A-<%-$A-%R-2R?-!R%=, .J-28A/-.-i-2-.%-$-.%-tJ-.%-=?-.%-;A.-G%-!R%-*A.-.-2~.-0<-L:R,,
.J- v<- /- 3A$- =- ?R$?- 0- *J- 3(J.- S$- 0R- ;A- <%- $A- %R- 2R- $.R.- /?- !R%- 0:A- <%28A/-3J.-0-*A.-$%-;A/-0-.J-/A-(R?-&/, /%-!R%-0-*A.-GA-<%-28A/-.-3.J.-:)A$-gJ/-P$?-0<-2.J/-$*A?-2vR?-/?-:)R$-{2?-.J<-:.R.-.$R?+J, gJ/-&A%-:VJ=-2<-:L%-2-)A-28A/-0<-5-2:A-:)A$-gJ/-P$?-#J-,R.-0:A.2-3-0-.$-3-.J.-0<-2.J/-$*A?-=-<%-28A/-;R.-3J.-,-~.-GA-P$?-0KA/-&A-3-=R$-0:A-eJ?-?-:V%?-/?-:)R$-0-/-3A$-?R$?-S$-$A-<%-%R?-!R%0:A-<%-28A/-3J.-0-=-<%-28A/-.-:)R$-0<-3,R%-2:A-KA<,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
463
1) The emptiness of the inner
Because this is its nature,
The eye is empty of the eye.
The same is valid for the ears and the nose,
For the tongue and body and also for mind. (181)
Because it is not present in a lasting fashion
And because it does not perish,
The nature of the eye or any other of the six
Does not have an essential existence.
This is asserted to be the emptiness of the inner. (182)
In the sutras, the following questions are presented:
One could ask, “Which inner phenomena are included within
the emptiness of the inner?” “Inner phenomena” are the eyes,
the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body, and the mind. Because
an eye does not last forever and because it does not perish, it is
empty of being an eye. Why is that? Because its nature is this
[emptiness].
The meaning of this is as follows:
Because the eye’s nature is this emptiness, the eye is empty of essentially
being an eye. The same empty nature is valid for the ears and the nose, for the
tongue and body and also for mind. We can therefore say:
(subject): Given that the six ayatanas, the eye and so on, lack an inherently
existing essence, that their nature is empty from the very outset,
(predicate): it is necessary to assert that this nature is the emptiness of the inner,
when posited in relation to the two truths at the unexamined
level common in the world,
(reason): because it is evident that the Madhyamikas—who explain interdependent origination just as it is and who conduct themselves in
accord with worldly consensus—in making their presentation
correctly use well-renowned terminology to describe the existence
or nonexistence of a nature in the context of the two truths at the
unexamined level, and in doing so, they posit that the true nature
for any of the six [inner ayatanas] is a lack of inherent nature, i.e.,
that the eye and so on lack an inherent essence of their own.
464
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
$%-KA<-.J-;A-<%-28A/-.J,,
;A/-KA<-$9$?-/A-$9$?-GA?-!R%-,,
1-.%-SA-<R-<J$-L-.%-,,
(R?-i3?-*A.-G%-.J-28A/-/R,, 183
$9$?-?R$?-<%-28A/-3J.-0-*A.,,
KA-<R=-!R%-0-*A.-.-:.R.,, 184 !#
$9$?-?R$?-KA:A-(R?-i3?-<%-<%-%R-2R?-!R%-!J, $%-$A-KA<-$9$?-.J:A<%- 28A/- !R%- 0- *A.- .J- ;A/- 0:A- KA<- $9$?- /A- $9$?- GA- <%- <%- $A- %R- 2R?!R%-=, .J-28A/-.-1-.%-SA-<R-<J$-L-.%-(R?-i3?-*A.-G%-<%-<%-%R-2R?!R%-0-.J-28A/-/R,, .J?-/-$9$?-?R$?-KA:A-*J-3(J.-S$-$A-<%-28A/-3J.*A.-/A-KA-<R=-!R%-0-*A.-.-:.R.-.R,,
$?3-0-/A,
$*A?-(<-<%-28A/-3J.-*A.-/A,,
KA-/%-!R%-0-*A.-;A/-/R,, 184 $%
KA-/%-$A-*J.-LJ.-$*A?-&<-<%-<%-%R-2R?-!R%-0:A-<%-28A/-3J.-0-*A.-/A-KA/%-!R%-0-*A.-;A/-/R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
465
2) The emptiness of the outer
Because this is its nature,
Form is empty of form.
The same goes for sound, odor, taste, bodily sensation,
And all mental phenomena. (183)
The very lack of a true nature in form and so on
Is asserted to be the emptiness of the outer. (184ab)
Outer phenomena, forms and so on, are empty of an essential makeup.
Because form’s nature is this emptiness, form is empty of an essential component constituting it as a form. The same is valid for sounds, odors, tastes,
bodily sensations, and mental phenomena—they are all empty of an essential component of their own. Thus, the very lack of a true nature in the six
outer ayatanas, form and so on, is asserted to be the emptiness of the outer.
3) The emptiness of the outer and inner
The very lack of a true nature for both combined
Is the emptiness of outer and inner. (184cd)
Both, i.e., the inner and outer ayatanas combined, are empty of an essential component of their own. This very lack of a true nature is the emptiness
of outer and inner.
466
The Moon of Wisdom
28A-0-/A,
(R?-i3?-<%-28A/-3J.-0-*A.,,
3#?-0?-!R%-0-*A.-&J?-2~.,,
!R%-*A.-.J-;%-!R%-*A.-GA,,
%R-2R?-!R%-0<-:.R.-0-;A/,, 185
!R%-*A.-&J?-L:A-!R%-*A.-$%-,,
!R%-*A.-!R%-*A.-.-:.R.-.J,,
!R%-*A.-.%R?-0R:C-]R-&/-IA,,
:6B/-0-2^R$-KA<-$?%?-0-;A/,, 186
!R%-*A.-:.A-/A-.2?-3,:-.%-, o.-#J-.%-, :1$?-?J%-?R$?-GA?-(R?,3?-&.-=-2>.-G%-, :.A-aR2-.0R/-IA?-3.R-)A-v-2<-:.?-L?-3-L??R$?-GA-(R?-i3?-<%-<%-%R-2R?-!R%-0:A-<%-28A/-3J.-0-*A.-=-3#?-0?!R%-0-*A.-&J?-2~.-.J,
?J3?-:PJ=-=?,
(R?-i3?-,3?-&.-*J-3J.-0,,
!R%-*A.-;A/-0<-<2-+-2>.,,
&J?-?R,,
!R%-*A.-.J-;%-!R%-*A.-GA-<%-$A-%R-2R?-!R%-0<-:.R.-0-;A/-+J, (R?-&/-/3.$$- $8A- 3A- !R%- 0:A- (R?- &%- 9.- &A$- ;R.- /- .J:A- !J%- .- .$$- L- 2!$- 0:A!R%-*A.-)R-/%-0-.%-.$J-w/-0-28J.-0-v<-;R.-0<-:I<-/:%-, :.A<-3A!R%- 0:A- (R?- &%- 9.- 43- ;%- 3J.- 0?- !R%- *A.- GA- ;R.- 43- .%- $8A- P2- 43-
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
467
4) The emptiness of emptiness
Phenomena’s lack of true nature
Is called “emptiness” by the learned ones.
This emptiness is also asserted to be empty
Of an emptiness having an essential makeup. (185)
The emptiness of what is called “emptiness”
Is asserted to be the emptiness of emptiness.
It was taught to counteract the clinging of beings
With an inclination to think of emptiness as an entity. (186)
Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes, the tantras, Vimuktasena,
Haribhadra, and so forth explain that [in the phrase “the emptiness of
emptiness,” the latter] “emptiness” refers to all phenomena, [i.e., “the
emptiness of emptiness” means the emptiness of all phenomena.] The
acharya [Chandrakirti, however, teaches] that [this latter emptiness] refers
to the emptiness of an essential component in phenomena—composite,
noncomposite, and so on. It is this very lack of true nature that the learned
ones in accordance with the sutras call “emptiness.” As is stated in the Essay
on Bodhichitta:
That all phenomena without exception are unborn
Is perfectly taught to be emptiness.
This emptiness is also asserted to be empty of an actual emptiness having an
essential makeup. If a phenomenon—no matter how small—which was
not empty could be found, then based on such an item or basis for refutation, an emptinesses that would refute the object of refutation, like [the
emptinesses] that the Jonangpas and Gedenpas assert to exist,3 could also
be found. However, since there is not even the smallest phenomenon that
is not empty, where could one find justification for any existence of emptiness or a verifiable basis for it?
468
The Moon of Wisdom
.:%-$-=-:,., !R%-*A.-&J?-L:A-!R%-*A.-$%-.J-/A-!R%-*A.-!R%-*A.-.-:.R..J, :.A-=?-$8/-.-#-&A$-!R%-*A.-=-.%R?-0R-2.J/-0-2:3-2.J/-0<-3J.0:A-.R/-LJ.-0-&/-IA-.%R?-0R-.%-.%R?-3J.-.-$8A-P2-0<-gR$-0:A-]R-&/-IA:6B/-0-2^R$-(J.-.-$?%?-0-;A/-+J,
:)A$-gJ/-:.?-2!R.-=?,
!/-gR$-,3?-&.-$8R3-0:A-KA<,,
!R%-*A.-2..-lA-2!/-0<-36.,,
$%-=:%-.J-=-:6B/-;R.-0,,
.J-/A-HR.-GA?-(R.-0<-36.,,
&J?-?R,,
s-0-=-gJ/-(R?-&/-.%-, !R%-5=-.%-.$R?-0-2>.-0-$*A?,
.%-0R-/A,
?J3?-&/-$R.-GA-:)A$-gJ/-/A,,
3-=?-H2-LJ.-*A.-KA<-.%-,,
5.-3J.-.0J-;A?-3-3,:-/A,,
3J.-KA<-KR$?-i3?-(J/-0R-*A.,, 187
KR$?-2&-i3?-(J/-0R-.J-*A.-.R-!J, KR$?-=?-=R$?-?-$R.-2&.-GA-:)A$gJ/-3J.-0?-?J3?-&/-+J-:PR-2-.%-$R.-GA-:)A$-gJ/-/A-3-=?-H2-0<-LJ.-0*A.-GA-KA<-.%-, KR$?-2&-0R-<J<-;%-L3?-?R$?-2|R3-/-KR$?-;R%?-?2&.- /?- 2|R3?- 0?- 5.- 3J.- 0:A- .0J- ;A?- $/?- 0?- 3- 3,:- /A- 3J.- 0:AKA<-<R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
469
The emptiness of what is called “emptiness” is asserted to be the emptiness of
emptiness. It was taught in order to counteract the clinging that some beings
would otherwise entertain, namely beings with an inclination to think of
emptiness as a verifiable basis, i.e., as an entity or nonentity which would
perform the function of a truly existent or non-truly existent entity.
From the Praise of the Transcendence of the World:
In order to subdue all conceptuality,
You teach the nectar of emptiness.
To cling to it as being this or that
Is something you denounce.
5) The emptiness of the vast
1) Explanation of the basis, that which contains the quality
2) Explanation of the way in which it is empty and the purpose
1) Explanation of the basis, that which contains the quality
Because they completely pervade
Sentient beings as well as their vessel-like worlds
And because the immeasurables exemplify their limitlessness,
The directions are that which is vast. (187)
The ten directions are that which is vast. This is because we look at the directions with reference to
• the universe and all sentient beings: The directions pervade all sentient beings, the wanderers, and the entire world, the vessel. There are
no worlds or any sentient being to be found outside the directions.
• love and so on: When meditating on love and so on, one repeatedly
concentrates on each of the ten directions, meditating on love and so
on as reaching out through all of them. The directions are thus exemplified by the [four] immeasurables, and therefore there is no end to
them.
470
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
:.A-.$-2&-(<-KR$?-i3?-GA?,,
!R%-0-*A.-/A-$%-;A/-.J,,
(J/-0R-!R%-0-*A.-;A/-.J,,
(J/-0R<-:6B/-0-2^R$-KA<-$?%?,, 188
KR$?-:.A-.$-2&-(<-KR$?-i3?-GA-<%-$A-%R-2R?-!R%-0-*A.-/A-$%-;A/-0-.J(J/-0R-.J-!R%-0-*A.-;A/-0<-+J-LJ-V$-0-?R$?-KR$?-i3?-5.-3J.-0<-,3?&.-=-H2-0:A-m?-?R-~3-.-(J/-0R<-:6B/-0-.$-$A-:6B/-0-^R$-0:A-(J.-.$?%?-0:A-KA<,
S$-0-/A,
.J-/A-.$R?-0-3(R$-;A/-0?,,
.R/-.3-M-%/-:.?-0-;A/,,
.J-/A-.J-;A?-!R%-*A.-$%-,,
.J-/A-.R/-.3-!R%-*A.-.J,, 189
M-:.?-.%R?-0R:C-]R-&/-IA,,
:6B/-0-2^R$-0<-L-2:A-KA<,,
.R/-.3-3HJ/-0?-.R/-.3-0,,
!R%-0-*A.-/A-2!/-0<-36.,, 190
M%-:.?-.J-/A-.R/-M-%/-=?-:.?-0-;A/-+J, 0-<-3-AF-8J?-0-<-3-/A-.30:3-3(R$-=-:)$-$A, AF-/A-.R/-+J-:V?-2-.%-.$R?-0-.%-;=-?R$?-=:)$-0?, M%-:.?-.J-*J?-2:A-.$R?-0-,3?-&.-GA-3(R$-;A/-0?-.J-*A.-
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
471
2) Explanation of the way in which it is empty
and the purpose
These directions, all ten of them,
Are empty, and this is
The emptiness of the vast.
It was taught in order to counteract clinging to vastness. (188)
These directions, all ten of them, are empty of an essential component constituting them as directions. This emptiness is taught to be the emptiness of
the vast, because this enables beings, such as the Vaisheshikas, to counteract their clinging to vastness, where they think, “The directions are limitless and are a substance that pervades everything.”
6) The emptiness of genuine reality
Since it is the supreme aim,
Genuine reality is the transcendence of misery.
That this is empty of itself
Is the emptiness of genuine reality. (189)
In order to counteract the clinging
Of beings with an inclination to think of nirvana as an entity,
The one who knows genuine reality
Has presented this as the emptiness of genuine reality. (190)
Nirvana (Tib. myang ‘das) means transcendence of misery. [Genuine reality]
is in Sanskrit “paramartha,” where “parama” means genuine or “supreme”
and “artha” means reality (Tib. don). “Don” can also have the sense of
fruition, purpose or aim, object, and so on. Hence, “nirvana” is the supreme
of all aims of beings.
472
The Moon of Wisdom
GA-KA<, M%-:.?-.J-/A-.J?-!R%-0-*A.-$%-;A/-0-.J-/A-.R/-.3-0-!R%-0-*A.-.J,
.%R?-0R-.%-, .%R?-3J.-.%-, $*A?-!-;A/-3A/-IA-3-28A-.%-V=-2:A-KA<,
.R/- .3- 3HJ/- 0- ?%?- o?- GA?- .R/- .3- 0- !R%- 0- *A.- /A- 2!/- 0<- 36.- .J,
LJ-5?, ?R-?R<-2g$?-0?-:$R$-0-$%-, V=-2:R-?R-?R-?R-?R-;A/, &J?w/-m?-)A-~J.-GA-V=-m?-.J-~J.-.-P2-0<-:.R.-0-.%-, i=-:LR<-,R.-0M%- :.?- :$R$- 2.J/- 2.J/- P2- 0:A- .%R?- 0R<- 3%R/- 0<- 8J/- 0:A- ]R- &/i3?-GA-v-2-%/-0:A-:6B/-0-2^R$-0<-L-2:A-KA<,
2./-0-/A,
nJ/-=?-L%-KA<-#3?-$?3-0R,,
:.?-L?-;A/-0<-%J?-0<-2~.,,
.J-/A-.J-;A?-!R%-*A.-$%-,,
.J-/A-:.?-L?-!R%-*A.-$?%?,, 191
#3?-$?3-0R-i3?-:.?-L?-;A/-0<-%J?-0<-3.R-=?-2~.-.J, o-nJ/=?-L%-2:A-KA<-#3?-$?3-0R-.J-/A-.J:A-<%-$A-%R-2R?-!R%-*A.-$%-.J-/A-:.?L?-!R%-*A.-.-$?%?-?R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
473
Because it is beyond any of the four limits—entity, nonentity, both, or neither—this nirvana is empty of itself, and this is the emptiness of genuine reality. The Buddha, who knows genuine reality, has presented this emptiness of
genuine reality in order to counteract the clinging which beings with lesser
views entertain, such as
• the Vaibhashikas, who assert that there are as many separation substances as there are [individual non-] associated [compositional] substances [of cessation] by stating, “For each [substance] of cessation
found through individual investigation there is a [substance] of separation.”
• the Yogacharins who cling strongly to nirvana, the truth of cessation,
as an entity which is truly existent.
7) The emptiness of the composite
Because they come about due to conditions, the three realms
Are clearly described as being composite.
They are empty of themselves
And this is taught to be the emptiness of the composite. (191)
In the sutras, the three realms are clearly described as being composite. Because
they come about due to causes and conditions, the three realms are empty of
themselves, i.e., empty of an essential makeup. This is taught to be the emptiness of the composite.
474
The Moon of Wisdom
2o.-0-/A,
$%-=-*J-$/?-3A-g$-*A.,,
.J-.$-3J.-0-:.?-3-L?,,
.J-/A-.J-;A?-!R%-*A.-$%-,,
.J-/A-:.?-3-L?-!R%-*A.,, 192
$%-=-,R$-3<-*J-2-.%-, 2<-.-$/?-0-.%-, ,-3<-3A-g$-0-*A.-.J-:.?L?-GA-35/-*A.-$?3-0R-.J-.$-3J.-0-/A-:.?-3-L?-;A/-=, .J-/A-:.?-3L?-.J-;A?-!R%-*A.-$%-.J-/A-:.?-3-L?-!R%-*A.-.R,, :.A-/A-/3-3#:-?R$?:.?-3-L?-=-g$-:6B/-2^R$-0:R,,
.$-0-/A,
$%-=-3,:-/A-;R.-3A/-0,,
.J-/A-3,:-=?-:.?-0<-2eR.,,
.J-.J-#R-/?-!R%-0-*A.,,
3,:-=?-:.?-0-!R%-*A.-2~.,, 193
$%-=-g$-(.-GA-3,:-/A-;R.-0-3A/-0-3,:-$*A?-.%-V=-2-.2-3:A-=3-.J/A-3,:-=?-:.?-0<-2eR.-.R,, 3,:-=?-:.?-0-.J-3,:-=?-:.?-0-.J#R-/?-!R%-0-*A.-/A-3,:-=?-:.?-2-!R%-0-*A.-.-2~.-.R,, #-&A$-3,:=?-:.?-0:A-.2-3:A-=3-g$-.%R?-?-:.R.-0:%-$8%-:.A-*A.-GA?-2!$$R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
475
8) The emptiness of the noncomposite
Anything that lacks arising, remaining and being impermanent
Is a noncomposite phenomenon.
That this is empty of itself
Is the emptiness of the noncomposite. (192)
Anything that lacks the three defining characteristics of a composite phenomenon—to arise in the beginning, to remain in the interim, and to be
impermanent in the end—is a noncomposite phenomenon. That such [noncomposite phenomena] are empty of [a truly existent] noncompositeness
is the emptiness of the noncomposite. It counteracts clinging to noncomposite phenomena, the sky and so on, as being permanent.
9) The emptiness of that which transcends extremes
That which is without extremes
Is described as the transcendence of extremes.
That this is empty of just that
Is named “the emptiness of that which transcends extremes.” (193)
That which is without the extremes of permanence and annihilation—the
Middle Way free from the two extremes—is described as the transcendence
of extremes. This transcendence of extremes is empty of just that transcendence and is named “the emptiness of the transcendence of extremes.” Some
assert that the Middle Way, which goes beyond extremes, is a permanent
entity, but such assertions are also refuted here in this text.
476
The Moon of Wisdom
2&-0-/A,
,R$-3-.%-0R-,-3-3,:,,
.J-.$-3J.-0?-:#R<-2-/A,,
,R$-3-,-3-3J.-0<-2eR.,,
:PR-:R%-V=-KA<-kA-=3-v:A,, 194
YA.-:.A-.J-;A?-.2J/-*A.-$%-,,
.J-/A-,R$-3-.%-,-3,,
3J.-0-!R%-0-*A.-.R-8J?,,
2!/-2&R?-=?-/A-%J?-0<-2~.,, 195
:#R<-2-/A-,R$-3-,-3-3J.-0<-2eR.-.J, ,R$-3-.%-0R-.%-,-3-/A-3,:-!J-.J-.$3J.-0?-?R,, ,R$-3,:-.2?-$?3-3J.-0:A-.R/-;%-!/-mR2-:O=-%R<-,R$3,:-3J.-0:A-.R/-=-3A-29%-$A, :#R<-2-<%-28A/-3J.-0-*J-:)A$-$/?-0.%-V=-2-=-:)R$-$R,, kA-=3-v-2:A-YA.-0-:.A-.J:A-%R-2R?-.2J/-0-*A.-$%-.J/A-,R$-3-.%-,-3-3J.-0-!R%-0-*A.-.R-8J?-:(R?-*R2-GA-;R/-+/-.%-w/-0:A->J<KA/-IA-2!/-2&R?-=?-/A-%J?-0<-2~.-.R,, ,R$-3,:-.2?-$?3-V=-2-=}-3-/?-:.A<-:R%-2-.%-:.A-/?-$8/-.-:PR-2-.%-V=-2:A-KA<-<R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
477
10) The emptiness of that which lacks beginning and end
Since the wheel of samsara
Has no initial beginning and no final end,
It is described as lacking beginning and end.
Because it lacks coming or going, like a dream, (194)
Existence is devoid of itself.
This is called “the emptiness
Of that which lacks beginning and end”
As clearly described in the treatises. (195)
The wheel of samsara is described to be without beginning and end, because it
has no initial beginning and no final end. This lack of a beginning, middle,
and end does not apply to the delusive appearances of apparent reality, but
refers to samsara’s being without inherent nature, i.e., its being free of arising, abiding, and ceasing. Since that which is free of beginning, middle,
and end is free of coming here from a previous state and going from here to
another, existence is devoid of an essential component of its own, like a
dream. This is called “the emptiness of that which lacks beginning and end” as
clearly described in the treatises on the Prajnaparamita, which are endowed
with the virtuous qualities of curing and protecting.
478
The Moon of Wisdom
2&-$&A$-0-/A,
.R<-2-8J?-L-:,R<-2-.%-,,
:2R<-2-=-/A-%J?-0<-2eR.,,
.R<-3J.-$+R%-0-3J.-0-!J,,
:$:-;%-.R<-3J.-$%-;A/-0:R,, 196
.R<-2-3J.-0-.J-*A.-GA?,,
.J-*A.-!R%-0-*A.-$%-;A/,,
.J-.J:A-KA<-/-.R<-3J.-0,,
!R%-0-*A.-&J?-L-2<-2eR.,, 197
.R<-2-8J?-L-2-/A-:,R<-2-.%-:2R<-2-=-/A-%J?-0<-2eR.-&A%-, .R<-3J.-/A-,~.-.-$+R%-2-3J.-0-!J-.R<-L-3A/-&A%-:$<-;%-:2R<-2-3J.-0-]%-L-5S$?$*A?-GA-.$J-2-$%-;A/-0:R,, .R<-2-3J.-0-.J-*A.-GA?-.R<-2-3J.-0-.J-*A.!R%-0-*A.-$%-;A/-0-.J-/A-o-35/-.J:A-KA<-/-.R<-2-3J.-0-!R%-0-*A.-&J?-L2<-2eR.-.R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
479
11) The emptiness of that which should not be rejected
“To reject” is clearly described as
“To eliminate” and “to throw away.”
The “not-to-be-rejected” is that which should not be given up.
It is that which should not be rejected in any situation at all. (196)
That which should not be rejected
Is empty of being inherently that;
This emptiness is therefore described as
The emptiness of that which should not be rejected. (197)
“To reject” is clearly described as “to eliminate” and “to throw away.” Conventionally, the “not-to-be-rejected” is that which should not be given up; it is
that which should not be rejected and should not be thrown away in any situation at all; on the contrary, it is that which should be adopted, namely,
the virtuous actions of the two accumulations.
That which should not be rejected is empty of being inherently that, i.e., it
is empty of being something [truly existent] that should not be rejected,
and this emptiness is therefore described as the emptiness of that which should
not be rejected.
480
The Moon of Wisdom
2&-$*A?-0-/A,
:.?-L?-=-?R$?-%R-2R-*A.,,
$%-KA<-aR2-3-<%-?%?-o?,,
o=-Y?-.J-28A/-$>J$?-i3?-GA?,,
3-36.-.J:A-KA<-:.?-L?-=,, 198
?R$?-0-i3?-GA-%R-2R-*A.,,
<%-28A/-*A.-.-2~.-0-!J,,
.J-*A.-GA?-.J-!R%-*A.-$%-,,
.J-/A-<%-28A/-!R%-0-*A.,, 199
:.?- L?- 3- L?- =- ?R$?- GA- (R?- i3?- GA- %R- 2R- *A.- .J- /A- $%- KA<- aR2- .%- ,
<%-?%?-o?-.%-, o=-Y?-.%-, .J-28A/-$>J$?-0-i3?-GA?->J?-3,R%$A?-3-36.-.J, .J-.$-LR/-<%-3-LR/-<%-(R?-,3?-&.-GA-<%-28A/-$.R./?-!R%-0:A-!R%-*A.-;A/-0:A-KA<, 3-36.-0-.J:A-KA<-:.?-L?-=-?R$?-0i3?-GA-%R-2R-!R%-0-*A.-.J-/A-<%-28A/-*A.-.-2~.-0-!J, <%-28A/-3J.-0-=<%-28A/-.-3A%-2+$?-0:R,, :R-/-.2-3:A-$?%-<2-GA-2h-:.A<-3J:A-<%28A/-5-2-?R$?-=:%-<%-28A/-.-2eR.-<A$?-0<-:I<-+J, .J-:1$??R$?-GA?-3-L?-0:A-KA<-~3-/, 3-.J.-0-.J<-2eR.-0-3A-:$R$-3R., :R/+J- 5- ?R$?- :1$?- 0?- 3- L?- G%- $8/- P$?- GA- <A$?- 0?- <%- 28A/- ;A/0<-3A-<A$?-+J, <%-28A/-/A-2&R?-3A/-2vR?-3A/-;A/-.$R?-0?-5-?R$?-/A3-<A$-0-?R$?-GA?-L?-0:A-KA<,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
481
12) The emptiness of the true nature
Because it is the very essence of the composite and so on
It is not created by trainees, solitary realizers,
The heirs of the Victor or the tathagatas;
Therefore, the very essence (198)
Of the composite and so on
Is described as the nature itself.
That this is empty in itself
Is the emptiness of the true nature. (199)
Because it is the very essence of all phenomena—composite, noncomposite
and so on—it is not created by the knowledge and vision of trainees
(shravakas), solitary realizers (pratyekabuddhas), the heirs of the Victor (bodhisattvas) or the tathagatas. Whether these [tathagatas and so forth] manifest themselves or not, the nature of all phenomena is emptiness empty
from the very outset. In this way, this emptiness, which is the very essence
of all composite and so on, is not created; and therefore it is described as the
nature itself. One applies the name “nature” to a lack of nature.
One might think, “Well then, it is also justifiable to use this term
[‘nature’ which is defined] in the supreme teachings of the Middle Way
[as meaning ‘not created’] to describe the nature of fire, heat, and so on,
because such a nature is not created by any noble being either.”
In the context where no analysis is being conducted, expressions are
indeed not refuted. Even though it is the case that heat and the other characteristics of fire are not created by noble beings, it is not justifiable to use
the logic of common parlance to define heat as being the [true] nature [of
fire]. This is because the [true] nature of things cannot be contrived and is
not contingent upon anything else—whereas heat and so forth are compounded, created by ignorance and other such factors.
482
The Moon of Wisdom
!R%-0-*A.-/A-:1$?-0?-L?-?3-~3-0<-.R$?-$8A-;R.-.J, .J?-LA?-0:A.?-3-gR$?-=-:1$?-0?-3%R/-?3-.-$9A$?-0:A-KA<-8J?-0-=,
.J:1$?- 0?- 3- 36.- 0?- 3- L?- 0- .%- 2&R?- 3A/- .%- $8/- =- 3A- 2vR?- 0:A<%-28A/-/R-8J?-2&R?-3:A-<%-28A/-3A/-0:A-<%-28A/-/R-8J?-0-.J-43-8A$2~.-GA, .J-v<-2~.-0-/A-.J-v:A-<%-28A/-.J-3-2&R?-0:A-<%-28A/-.-P20-.%-, 3-2&R?-0:A-%R-2R-.%-2.$-*A.-&/-.-2!/-0-3-;A/-0?-.J-v:A-<%28A/-.J-*A.-GA?-<%-28A/-.J-!R%-*A.-$%-;A/-0-.J-/A-<%-28A/-!R%-0-*A.-.R,,
2&-$?3-0-/A,
#3?-2&R-2o.-.%-<J$-S$-.%-,,
.J-=?-L%-2:A-5S<-S$-.%-,,
$9$?-&/-$9$?-&/-3A/-.J-28A/,,
:.?-L?-:.?-3-L?-(R?-i3?,, 200
(R?-.J-.$-/A-,3?-&.-GA,,
.J-.$-$A?-.2J/-!R%-*A.-$%-,, 201 !#
3A$- ?R$?- /%- $A- #3?- .%- $9$?- ?R$?- KA:A- #3?- .%- 3A$- $A- i3- >J??R$?-#3?-2&R-2o.-3A$-$A-:.?-+J-<J$-0-/?-;A.-GA-:.?-+J-<J$-0:A-2<<J$-0-S$-.%-, <J$-0-.J-.$-=?-L%-0:A-5S<-2-S$-.%-, $9$?-&/-.%$9$?-&/-3-;A/-0-.%-.J-28A/-:.?-L?-:.?-3-L?-GA-(R?-i3?-/A-(R?,3?-&.-&J?-2~.-.R,, (R?-.J-.$-i3?-/A-,3?-&.-GA-<%-<%-$A-%R-2R-.J.$-$A?-.2J/-8A%-!R%-*A.-$%-;A/-0-.J-/A-(R?-,3?-&.-GA-!R%-0-*A.-.R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
483
It is possible that one could have doubts as to whether or not emptiness
is created by noble beings. Here one might think, “As long as one is a naive
being, there is no realization of emptiness, whereas noble beings see it
directly.”
Stating that the nature is not artificial, i.e., not created by noble beings;
that it is not contrived; and that it is not contingent upon anything else is
merely describing it in terms of what it is not. By doing so, one avoids making any affirmations regarding such a nature. One does not state that it is
inherently uncontrived, one does not say that it has an inherent essence
or an intrinsic quality of being uncontrived. This nature is, therefore, empty
of a nature of its own, and this is the emptiness of the true nature.
13) The emptiness of all phenomena
The eighteen capacities, the six types of contact,
And the six types of sensation that occur due to that;
All that has form, all that does not;
And, likewise, phenomena that are composite and those that are not– (200)
All these phenomena, each and every one,
Are devoid of, or empty of, themselves. (201ab)
The expression “all phenomena” covers the following:
• The eighteen capacities, consisting of the inner capacities: the eyes and
so on; the outer capacities: forms and so on; and the consciousnesses:
that of the eye and so on
• The six types of contact ranging from contact associated with the eye
up to contact associated with rational mind
• The six types of sensation occurring due to these types of contact
• Everything that has form and everything that does not
• Composite phenomena and those that are noncomposite.
All these phenomena, each and every one, are devoid of having an essential
component of their own—they are empty. This emptiness is the emptiness
of all phenomena.
484
The Moon of Wisdom
2&-28A-0-=-%R-2R?-3.R<-2!/, (R?-&/-IA?-o?-0<-2>., gJ/-2#-8A%!R%-5=-IA?-.R/-2#-2-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
$9$?-<%-=-?R$?-.%R?-3J.-$%-,,
.J-/A-<%-35/-!R%-0-*A.,, 201 $%
$9$?-GA-35/-*A.-$9$?-?-<%-2-=-?R$?-0-i3-3HJ/-IA-35/-*A.-i30-,3?-&.-3%R/-?3-LJ.-0:A-2<-.J-.$-.%R?-0R-3J.-0-$%-;A/-0-.J-/A-<%$A-35/-*A.-!R%-0-*A.-.R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
485
14) The emptiness of defining characteristics
1) A brief presentation stating the essential point
2) An expanded explanation of the phenomena that bear the quality [of
emptiness]
3) A summary which briefly states the bases and their mode of being
empty
1) A brief presentation stating the essential point
The lack of entity within “anything suitable to be form” and so on
Is the emptiness of defining characteristics. (201cd)
Defining characteristics range from the characteristic of form up to and
including the characteristic of omniscience. “Anything suitable to be form”
is the defining characteristic of form; “the direct access to everything possible 4” is the defining characteristic of omniscience. The lack of entity
within any defining characteristic is the emptiness of defining characteristics.
486
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=-!/-/?-*R/-3R%?-.%-, i3-L%-$A-<%-$A-35/-*A.-2>.-0$*A?, .%-0R-=, 1%-0R-.%-#3?-.%-, *J-3(J.-.%-, gJ/-:VJ=-IA-<%35/-$?3,
.%-0R-/A,
$9$?-/A-$9$?-<%-35/-*A.-&/,,
5S<-2-MR%-2:A-2.$-*A.-&/,,
:.->J?-35/-3<-:6B/-0-!J,,
:.-LJ.-3%R/-0<-:.-LJ.-0:R,, 202
;=-=-?R-?R<-i3-<A$-0,,
i3->J?-<%-$A-35/-*A.-.R,,
1%-0R-#$-2}=-<%-35/-*A.,,
#3?-GA-2.$-*A.-4=-$.$-:.R.,, 203
$9$?- /A- $9$?- &/- /%- 1/- 5/- U.- 0- /- :I<- 2- 2*J.- .- <%- 2:A- KA<$9$?-?-<%-2:A-35/-*A.-&/-/R,, 5S<-2-/A-.$J-#A$-$A-i3-(A/-?A3-$.%?R$?-MR%-2:A-35/-*A.-&/-/R,, :.->J?-/A-(R?-i3?-GA-,/-3R%-3-;A/-0:A35/-3<-:6B/-0-!J, :.-LJ.-/A-?J3?-;=-=-3%R/-0<-:.-LJ.-&A%-$;R2<-LJ.-0:R,, $9$?-?R$?-;=-i3?-=-?R-?R<-i3-0<-<A$-0-/A-i3->J?<%-$A-35/-*A.-.R,, *J<-=J/-IA-1%-0R-i3?-/A-#$-2}=-$?3-$%-<%-$A<%-$A-35/-*A.-.R,, #3?-i3?-GA-2.$-*A.-:6B/-0<-(R?-3,/-0:A-|R/?-4=-$.$-0:A-35/-*A.-&/-.-:.R.-.R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
487
2) An expanded explanation of the phenomena that bear the
quality [of emptiness]
1) The defining characteristics of affliction
2) The defining characteristics of refinement
1) The defining characteristics of affliction
1) The aggregates [skandhas] and capacities [dhatus]
2) The doors of perception [ayatanas]
3) Interdependence
1) The aggregates [skandhas] and capacities [dhatus]
Form is defined as anything suitable to be form,
Feeling as having the nature of experience,
Discrimination as conceiving attributes,
Formation, assuming a relation. (202)
Awareness of objects
Is the defining characteristic of consciousness;
The aggregates are defined as suffering,
And the capacities are asserted to be of the nature of
a poisonous snake. (203)
• Form is defined as anything suitable to be form,5 because forms are able
to produce alteration on mutual impact.
• Feeling is defined as experience, i.e., experiencing the fully ripened
results of virtue and nonvirtue, which are well-being and torment
respectively.
• Discrimination has the defining characteristic of conceiving the particular attributes of phenomena.
• Formation is defined as the mind assuming a relation to its object, i.e.,
the mind positioning itself with respect to an object.
• Consciousness is defined as awareness of various objects, forms and so on.
• The compulsory aggregates are defined as any of the three types of suffering.
• The capacities are asserted to have the defining characteristics of a poisonous snake, since they have the capacity to maintain their own state,
[meaning they have the capacity to hold sentient beings in samsara]
and in this way correspond [to the poisonous snake’s ability to produce poison without poisoning itself ].
488
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
*J-3(J.-i3?-/A-?%?-o?-GA?,,
*J-2:A-|R<-I<-*A.-.-$?%?,, 204 !#
*J-3(J.-2&-$*A?-0R-i3?-/A-?%?-o?-GA?-#$-2}=-:L%-8A%-*J-2:A-|R<I<-0-*A.-.-$?%?-?R,,
$?3-0-/A,
gJ/-&A%-:VJ=-0<-:L%-2-$%-,,
.J-/A-:.-:UR.-35/-*A.-.R,, 204 $%
gJ/-&A%-:VJ=-2<-:L%-2-$%-.J-/A-:.-:UR.-GA-35/-*A.-.R-!J, o-nJ/-:.?>A%-5S$?-0-=?-L%-2:A-KA<,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
489
2) The doors of perception [ayatanas]
The ayatanas are taught by the Buddha
To be doors for arising. (204ab)
The twelve ayatanas are taught by the Buddha to be those which serve as
doors for the occurrence and the arising of suffering.
3) Interdependence
Interdependent origination
Is defined as interrelated occurrence. (204cd)
Interdependent origination is defined as interrelated occurrence, since it is an
occurrence resulting from the coming together and assembly of causes and
conditions.
490
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, =3-.%-:V?-2:A-<%-$A-35/-*A.-$*A?, .%-0R-=, 1<-KA/.%-, 2?3-$+/-?R$?-.%-, L%-KR$?-.%-, i3-,<-|R-$?3-.%-, i3,<-2o.-GA-35/-*A.-2>.-0-28A:A,
.%-0R-/A,
$+R%-2-.A/-0:A-1-<R=-KA/,,
5=-OA3?-$.%-3J.-35/-*A.-29R.,,
OR-3J.-35/-*A.-2lR/-:P?-GA,,
#-/-3-,R-3J.-*A.-.R,, 205
2?3-$+/-#.-0:A-35/-*A.-&/,,
>J?-<2-($?-3J.-35/-*A.-.J,,
1-<R=-KA/-0-S$-i3?-GA,,
35/-*A.-:.A-.$-;A/-0<-2eR.,, 206
2?3-$+/-i3?-.%-5.-3J.-.%-,,
.J-28A/-$8/-$%-$9$?-3J.-0,,
.J-.$-;%-.$-3HJ/-0-;A?,,
3A-:O$?-35/-*A.-&/-.-$?%?,, 207
.A/- 0- /A- <%- $A- =?- =R%?- ,R.- ?R$?- $+R%- 2- .A/- 0:A- 1- <R=- +- KA/- 0- .%- ,
5=- OA3?- /A- $/R.- :5K- %R%- 8A%- 1/- :.R$?- 0?- *R/- 3R%?- 0?- $.%- 3J.- GA35/-*A.-&/-/R,, 29R.-0-/A-$/R.-LJ.-=-OR-3J.-GA-35/-*A.-&/-/R,, 2lRR/:P?-/A-.$J-2-;R%?-?-:6B/-0:A-35/-*A.-&/-;A/-0?-#-/-3-,R-2-3J.-0*A.-.R,, 2?3-$+/-/A-.$J-2:A-(R?-,3?-&.-#.-0:A-35/-*A.-&/-/R,,
>J?- <2- /A- :$:- =- ;%- ($?- 0- 3J.- 0:A- 35/- *A.- &/- +J- M- %/- =?- :.?-
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
491
2) The defining characteristics of refinement
1) The defining characteristics of the path
2) The defining characteristics of the result
1) The defining characteristics of the path
1) The paramitas, the concentrations, and so on
2) The factors inducing enlightenment
3) The three doors to full liberation
4) The eight forms of full liberation
1) The paramitas, the concentrations, and so on
To give is the definition of the paramita of generosity;
Ethics is defined as freedom from torment;
Patience is the absence of anger;
And joyous effort is the absence of wrongdoing; (205)
Meditative concentration is magnetizing;
Precise knowledge is defined as lack of attachment.
These are the defining characteristics
Which describe the six paramitas. (206)
The concentrations, the immeasurables,
And, likewise, those which are otherwise, i.e., the formless states,
Are defined as undisturbed states,
As taught by the one with authentic knowledge. (207)
The paramita of generosity is defined as giving away one’s own body, one’s
enjoyments and so on. Ethics is defined as giving up harmful factors and
instead performing benefit which results in freedom from the torment of
disturbing emotions. Patience has the defining characteristic of absence of
anger towards any harmful factor. Joyous effort is the very absence of wrongdoing, since it is defined as perfectly upholding virtue. Meditative concentration has the defining characteristic of magnetizing all positive qualities
of virtue. Precise knowledge is defined as lack of attachment to anything what-
492
The Moon of Wisdom
0<-2PR.-0:A-KA<, .J?-/-1-<R=-+-KA/-0-S$-0R-i3?-GA-<%-$A-35/-*A.:.A-.$-;A/-0<-2eR.-.R,, 2?3-$+/-28A-0R-i3?-.%-, 5.-3J.-0-28A.%-, .J-28A/-.-$8/-$%-$9$?-3J.-0-28A-0R-.J-.$-/A-;%-.$-3HJ/-0??%?-o?-GA?-3A-:O$?-0-OR-2-3J.-0:A-35/-*A.-&/-$?%?-+J, .J-.$-/A:.R.-0-=-:.R.-($?-.%-V=-+J-#R%-OR-%%?-0?-,R2-0:A-KA<,
$*A?-0-/A,
L%-(2-KR$?-(R?-?3-&-2./,,
%J?-0<-:L%-LJ.-<%-35/-*A.,, 208 !#
L%- (2- GA- KR$?- GA- (R?- /A-?3- &- l- 2./- 0R- i3?- :#R<- 2- =?- :.:- 2:A-o;A/-0?-,<-0<-%J?-0<-:L%-2<-LJ.-/?-GA-<%-$A-35/-*A.-&/-/R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
493
soever. Since they lead to nirvana, they are defined as the six paramitas (para:
the other shore; mita: gone).
The Buddha who has authentic knowledge has taught that the four concentrations, the four immeasurables, and likewise those which are otherwise,
i.e., the four formless states, are defined as undisturbed states, since they are
attained due to ridding oneself of attachment to sensory objects and abandoning anger and aversion.
2) The factors inducing enlightenment
The thirty-seven factors inducing enlightenment
Have the defining characteristic of enabling definite emergence. (208ab)
The thirty-seven factors inducing enlightenment have the defining characteristic of enabling definite emergence, i.e., liberation, because they are the
causes for transcending samsara.
494
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-/A,
!R%-0-*A.-GA-35/-*A.-/A,,
.3A$?-0-3J.-0?-i3-.2J/-*A.,, 208 $%
35/-3-3J.-0-8A-*A.-.J,,
$?3-0:A-35/-*A.-#$-2}=-.%-,,
$+A-3$-3J.209 !#$
i3-0<-,<-0:A-|R-!R%-0-*A.-GA-35/-*A.-/A-.%R?-0R-.3A$?-0-3J.-0?-i30<- gR$- 0:A- SA- 3?- *J- 2<- 3- &$?- 0:A- KA<- i3- 0<- .2J/- 0:A- 35/- *A.- &//R,, i3-0<-,<-0:A-|R-35/-3-3J.-0:A-35/-*A.-/A-35/-3-3-.3A$?-0:A|R-/?-8A-2:A-35/-*A.-.J-i3-,<-|R-$?3-0-(R/-0-3J.-0:A-35/-*A.-/A-#$2}=-.%-$+A-3$-3J.-0:A-35/-*A.-&/-+J, :.-LJ.-#$-2}=-IA-2.$-*A.&/-i3?-=-;%-.$-0<-eJ?-?-v-8A%->J?-<2-GA?-:.-LJ.-GA-<%-28A/-=v-2-/-(R/-0<-3A-LJ.-0:A-KA<-<R,,
28A-0-/A,
i3-,<-i3?-GA,,
35/-*A.-i3-0<-PR=-LJ.-0:R,, 209 $%
i3-,<-2o.-0R-i3?-GA-35/-*A.-/A, ~R3?-:)$-$A-1A2-0-=?-PR=-LJ.-GAKA<-i3-0<-PR=-2<-LJ.-0:A-35/-*A.-&/-/R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
495
3) The three doors to full liberation
The definition of emptiness
Is voidness, because reference points are gone; (208cd)
Absence of attributes is peace;
The definition of the third is absence of suffering
And stupidity; . . . [Tibetan line continues] (209a-c)
The door to full liberation referred to as emptiness is defined as voidness.
Because all reference to [supposed] true entities has disappeared, there is
absolutely no stain of conceptual pollution. The door to full liberation
referred to as absence of attributes is defined as peace in that there is no focus
on attributes. The third door to full liberation, namely freedom from
expectations, has the defining characteristic of absence of suffering and stupidity.
Since proper regard is exercised with respect to beings overwhelmed by the
suffering of existence and since the nature of existence is seen with precise
knowledge, expectation no longer takes place.
4) The eight forms of full liberation
...The definition of the eight types of full liberation
Is that they completely free. (209cd)
The definition of the eight types of full liberation is that they completely free,
because they completely liberate a practitioner from the obscuration
related to meditative equanimity (Skt. samapatti).
496
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-=, !R2?-.%-, 3A-:)A$?-0-.%-, ?R-?R-;%-.$-0<-<A$-0-.%-,
L3?-0-(J/-0R-?R$?-.%-, ?%?-o?-GA-(R?-3-:SJ?-0-.%-, i3-3HJ/-IA<%-$A-35/-*A.-S$-$A,
.%-0R-/A,
!R2?-i3?->A/-+-i3-0<-/A,,
$+/-=-:2J2?-0:A-<%-28A/-$?%?,, 210 !#
:(.-:I<-IA-!R2?-2&-0R-i3?-/A->A/-+-i3-0<-/A-$+/-=-:2J2?-2:A-<%28A/-&/-.-$?%?-+J, >A/-+-$+/-=-:2J2?-0-*A.-GA?-,R$?-0-3J.-0:AKA<-<R,,
$*A?-0-/A,
*R2-0:A-3A-:)A$?-0-i3?-/A,,
>A/-+-2g/-0:A-%R-2R-;A/,, 210 $%
*R2- 0:A- 3A- :)A$?- 0- i3?- /A- >A/- +- 2g/- 0:A- %R- 2R- ;A/- +J- ??- G%- $8/- .2+<-2<-L-3A-/?-0:A-KA<,
$?3-0-/A,
?R-?R<-;%-.$-<A$-i3?-/A,,
%R2?-?R$?-5.-3J.-35/-*A.-&/,, 211 !#
:(.- :I<- IA- ?R- ?R- ;%- .$- <A$- 0- 28A- 0R- i3?- /A- %R2?- 0- =- ?R$?- $%- =;%-5.-3J.-0:3-3J.-0:A-35/-*A.-&/-+J, ;=-28A-0R-i3?-=-,$?-,R$?3J.-0:A-KA<,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
497
2) The defining characteristics of the result
1) The powers
2) Fearlessness
3) Correct individual awareness
4) Great love and so on
5) The unparalleled qualities
6) The omniscience of a buddha
1) The powers
The powers are taught to be
Of the nature of perfect ascertainment. (210ab)
The ten powers that will be explained [in the last chapter of the text] are
taught to be of the nature of perfect ascertainment, because the [ability] to
perfectly ascertain [the true nature of phenomena] gives [the noble ones]
unhindered [power].
2) Fearlessness
Perfect stability is the essence
Of the protector’s types of fearlessness. (210cd)
The essence of the protector’s [four] types of fearlessness is perfect stability,
because no one at all is capable of undermining them.
3) Correct individual awareness
The [four types of] correct individual awareness, confidence and so on,
Are defined as being immeasurable. (211ab)
The four types of correct individual awareness that will be explained [in the
last chapter of the text] have the defining characteristic of not being measurable by any means—i.e., the confidence and so on they involve go beyond
any measure. This is because they are unimpeded with respect to their four
spheres.
498
The Moon of Wisdom
28A-0-/A,
:PR-=-1/-0-*J<-12-0,,
L3?-0-(J/-0R-8J?-L:R,, 211 $%
#$-2}=-&/-i3?-;R%?-*R2-0,,
,$?-eJ-(J/-0R:R-.$:-2-/A,,
<2-.$:A-35/-*A.-2+%-~R3?-/A,,
3-:SJ?-35/-*A.-&/-8J?-L,, 212
:PR-2-=-$/?-{2?-.%-3,<-,$-$A-1/-0-*J-2<-212-0:A-35/-*A.-&//A-?%?-o?-GA-L3?-0-(J/-0R-8J?-L:R,, ?J3?-&/-#$-2}=-&/-i3?;R%?-?-*R2-0-/A-?%?-o?-GA-,$?-eJ-(J/-0R:R,, ?%?-o?-GA-.$:-2-(J/0R-/A, ?J3?-&/-!/-.?-,3?-&.-0<-2.J-2-.%-3A-:V=-2<-<2-.$:A35/-*A.-&/-/R,, 2+%-~R3?-(J/-0R-/A-eJ?-($?-.%-#R%-OR-?R$?-.%-V=2:A-KA<-3-:SJ?-0:A-35/-*A.-&/-.->J?-0<-L:R,,
s-0-/A,
?%?-o?-(R?-/A-3-:SJ?-0,,
2&-.%-2o.-.-$%-:.R.-.$,
$%-KA<-!R/-.J?-3A-:UR$?-0,,
.J-KA<-3A-:UR$?-<%-35/-*A.,, 213
?%?- o?- GA- (R?- i3?- /A- 3- :SJ?- 0- 2&- .%- 2o.- .- $%- :.R.- 0- .$- 2&R2o.-.J, .J-.$-/A-$%-$A-KA<-!R/-0-?%?-o?-:O=-0-=-?R$?-0-3A-3%:2?- \$?- 3J.- 0- .J- *A.- GA?- 3- :UR$?- >A%- ,2- 0<- 3A- /?- 0- .J:A- KA<- 3A:UR$?-0:A-<%-$A-35/-*A.-&/-/R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
499
4) Great love and so on
To thoroughly accomplish the benefit of beings
Is called “great love”; (211cd)
To perfectly protect those who suffer
Is “great compassion”;
“Joy” is defined as being completely happy;
“Equanimity” as being unaffected. (212)
That which has the defining characteristic of thoroughly accomplishing the
temporary and ultimate types of benefit for sentient beings is called “the great
love of a buddha.” To perfectly protect sentient beings who are all suffering
is “the great compassion of a buddha.” The great joy of a buddha is defined
as being completely happy about the fact that any sentient being is never separated from bliss. “Great equanimity” should be known to have the defining characteristic of being unaffected, since [a buddha] is free from
attachment, anger, and so on.
5) The unparalleled qualities
The unparalleled buddha qualities
Are asserted to be eighteen in number.
Since nothing can deprive the Teacher of them,
They are defined as being irremovable. (213)
The unparalleled buddha qualities are asserted to be eighteen in number. Since
the Teacher is not enslaved by any delusion or any other such factor, there
is absolutely no opportunity for anything to deprive him of these qualities;
they are therefore defined as being irremovable.
500
The Moon of Wisdom
S$-0-/A,
i3-!/-3HJ/-*A.-;J->J?-/A,,
3%R/-?3-35/-*A.-&/-.-:.R.,,
$8/-/A-*A-5K-2-*A.-GA?,,
3%R/-?3-8J?-L<-3A-:.R.-.R,, 214
i3- 0- !/- 3HJ/- *A.- GA- ;J- >J?- /A- 1%- #3?- *J- 3(J.- GA?- 2#?- 0:A- (R?,3?-&.-=-3%R/-?3-.-I<-0:A-35/-*A.-&/-.-:.R.-.R,, $8/-*/-<%-$A3HJ/-0-/A->J?-L-*A-5K-2->J?-0-*A.-GA?-i3-0-,3?-&.-3%R/-?3-.-3HJ/0-8J?-L<-3A-:.R.-.R,,
$?3-0-/A,
$%-8A$-:.?-L?-35/-*A.-.%-,,
:.?-3-L?-0:A-35/-*A.-$%-,,
.J-.J-#R-/?-!R%-0-*A.,,
.J-/A-<%-35/-!R%-0-*A.,, 215
$%- 8A$- :.?- L?- GA- 35/- *A.- .%- :.?- 3- L?- GA- 35/- *A.- $%- ;A/- 0- .J<%-<%-$A-%R-2R-.J-#R-/?-!R%-0-*A.-.J-/A-<%-$A-35/-*A.-!R%-0-*A.-.R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
501
6) The omniscience of a buddha
It is asserted that the defining characteristic
Of the wisdom, which is omniscience itself, is directness—
Others are temporary
And are therefore not asserted to be direct. (214)
The wisdom which is omniscience itself is asserted to have the defining characteristic of direct [cognition] of all phenomena which, in brief, are the
skandhas, dhatus, and ayatanas. Other types of knowledge, i.e., the knowledge acquired by shravakas and pratyekabuddhas, are temporary and are
not considered to be direct and all-knowing.
3) A summary which briefly states the bases and their mode
of being empty
Any phenomenon—whether defined as composite
Or defined as something noncomposite—
Is empty of being just that.
This is the emptiness of defining characteristics. (215)
Any phenomenon—whether defined as composite or noncomposite—is empty
of an esssential component constituting it as being either. This is the emptiness of defining characteristics.
502
The Moon of Wisdom
2&R-s-0-/A,
.-v-2-:.A-3A-$/?->A%-,,
:.?-.%-3-:R%?-;R.-3-;A/,,
$%-.-.J-.$-3A-.3A$?-0,,
.J-=-3A-.3A$?-0-8J?-2eR.,, 216
3A-.3A$?-0-.J-<%-%R-2R,,
.J-;A?-.2J/-0-*A.-$%-.J,,
,J<-9$-$/?-3A/-:)A$-3A/-0?,,
3A-.3A$?-8J?-L:A-!R%-*A.-.R,, 217
.-v<-2-:.A-{.-&A$-3-;A/-&A%-, {.-&A$-3:%-,R$-3,:-.2?-$?3-IA?.J.-/-{.-&A$-+-;%-3A-$/?->A%-, :.?-0-8A$-0-.%-, 3-:R%?-0-3-*J?0:A-KA<-;R.-0-3-;A/-0?-.?-$?3-$%-=-.?-$?3-.J-.$-3A-.3A$?-0-.J=-3A-.3A$?-0-8J?-2eR.-=, 3A-.3A$?-0-.J-<%-$A-%R-2R-.J-;A?-.2J/-0-*A.$%- ;A/- 0- .J- /A- ,J<- 9$- $/?- 0- 3A/- 0- .%- :)A$- 0- 3A/- 0?- 3A- .3A$?- 8J?L:A-!R%-*A.-.R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
503
15) The emptiness of the imperceptible
The present does not last,
The past and future do not exist.
Not finding any of the [three times] in any of them
They are called “imperceptible.” (216)
This imperceptibility
Is devoid of having an essential makeup.
Because it is neither present in a lasting fashion nor does it perish,
It is the emptiness of what is called the imperceptible. (217)
The present is an instant. This instant, when analyzed for a beginning, middle, and end, does not even last for that instant. The past has gone and the
future has not arisen; therefore, the three times do not exist. Since none of
the three times can be seen in any of the three times, they are called “imperceptible.” This imperceptibility is devoid of having an essential makeup. It is
neither present in a lasting fashion nor does it perish and, therefore, it is the
emptiness of what is called the imperceptible.
504
The Moon of Wisdom
2&-S$-0-/A,
nJ/-=?-L%-KA<-.%R?-i3?-=,,
:.?-0-0-;A-%R-2R-3J.,,
:.?-0-0-/A-.J-*A.-GA?,,
!R%-*A.-.%R?-3J.-!R%-*A.-.R,, 218
o-.%-nJ/-=?-L%-2:A-KA<-.%R?-0R-i3?-=-:.?-0-=?-L%-2:A-5S$?-0:A%R-2R-3J.-=, :.?-0-=?-L%-2-.J-/A-*A.-GA-<%-%R?-!R%-0-*A.-/A-.%R?-0R-3J.0:A-%R-2R-*A.-!R%-*A.-.R,,
$*A?-0-=-.%R?-0R-.%-, .%R?-0R-3J.-0-.%-, <%-$A-%R-2R-.%-, $8/-IA-%R2R-!R%-0-*A.-.%-28A:A,
.%-0R-/A,
.%R?-0R:C-1?-/A-3.R<-2#?-/,,
1%-0R-s-i3?-2eR.-0-;A/,,
.J-i3?-.J-;A?-!R%-*A.-$%-,,
.J-.%R?-!R%-0-*A.-.-2>.,, 219
.%R?-0R-8J?-L-2:A-1-/A-3.R<-2#-/-1%-0R-s-0R-i3?-=-2eR.-0-;A/-IA, .Ji3?-.J:A-!R%-*A.-$%-;A/-0-.J-/A-.%R?-0R-!R%-0-*A.-.-2>.-.R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
505
16) The emptiness of an inherent essence in the
nonexistence of entities
Since entities arise from causes and conditions,
They are assembled and lack essential makeup.
That which is assembled is empty of being just that
And this is the emptiness of the nonexistence of entities. (218)
Since entities arise from causes and conditions, they are collections that have
been assembled and lack essential makeup. That which is assembled is empty
of being so in an inherent fashion and this is the emptiness of an inherent
essence in the nonexistence of entities.
2) The concise explanation treating of the four
1) The emptiness of entities
2) The emptiness of nonentities
3) The emptiness of the true nature
4) The emptiness of the entity that is otherwise
1) The emptiness of entities
The term “entity” is an expression which in brief
Refers to the five skandhas.
That these are empty of themselves
Is the emptiness of entities. (219)
The term “entity” is an expression which in brief refers to the five skandhas.
That these are empty of themselves is explained to be the emptiness of entities.
506
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
3.R<-2#?-/-/A-.%R?-3J.-0,,
:.?-3-L?-(R?-i3?-=-2eR.,,
.J-*A.-.%R?-3J.-.J?-!R%-*A.,,
.%R?-0R-3J.-0-!R%-*A.-.R,, 220
.%R?-0R-3J.-0<-2eR.-0-/A-3.R<-2#-/-/A-/3-3#:-.%-M-%/-=?-:.?-0?R$?-:.?-3-L?-GA-(R?-i3?-=-2eR.-=, .%R?-3J.-.J-*A.-.%-.%R?-3J..J-*A.-GA?-!R%-*A.-/A-.%R?-0R-3J.-0-!R%-0-*A.-2&?-2eR.-.R,,
$?3-0-/A,
<%-28A/-%R-2R-*A.-3J.-/A,,
<%-28A/-8J?-L:A-!R%-*A.-.J,,
:.A-v<-<%-28A/-3-L?-0?,,
<%-28A/-8J?-/A-L-2<-2~.,, 221
(R?-i3?-GA-<%-28A/-(R?-*A.-<%-$A-%R-2R-*A.-3J.-0-/A-<%-28A/-&J?-L-2:A!R%-0-*A.-.J-:.A-v<-(R?-i3?-GA-<%-28A/-*/-,R?-?R$?-GA->J?-3,R%-$A?3-L?-0?-/-<%-28A/-&J?-/A-L-2<-2~.-.R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
507
2) The emptiness of nonentities
“Nonentity” expresses in brief
All phenomena that are noncomposite;
These are empty of being nonentities.
This is the emptiness of nonentities. (220)
The term “nonentity” expresses in brief all phenomena that are noncomposite:
the sky, nirvana, and so on. The precise nature of nonentities, that they are
empty of their nonentityness, is expressed by the term “the emptiness of nonentities.”
3) The emptiness of the true nature
The true nature has no inherent essence—
This is the emptiness of the true nature.
Since it was not made into such a nature
It is referred to as natural. (221)
The true nature of all phenomena, dharmata, has no inherent essence of its
own. This is the emptiness of the true nature. Since the true nature of all phenomena was not made into such a nature by the knowledge and vision of
shravakas and so on, it is referred to as natural.
508
The Moon of Wisdom
28A-0-/A,
?%?-o?-i3?-/A-:L%-2:3,,
3-L%-;%-<%-.%R?-?-/,,
.%R?-0R-!/-IA-!R%-0-*A.,,
$8/-IA-.%R?-0R<-<2-+-21$?,, 222
;%-.$-3,:-.%-.J-28A/-*A.,,
.J-$8/-.%R?-0R:C-!R%-*A.-.R,, 223 !#
?%?- o?- i3?- /A- :L%- 2:3- 3- L%- ;%- <%- !J- .%R?- ?- /- .%R?- 0R- !/- IA$/?- =$?- .%- .J- #R- /- *A.- !R%- 0- *A.- /A- ,- ~.- .- &A:A- %R- 2R<- ;%- 3- P2- 0<g$-+-;R.-0?-3(R$-+-L%-2:A-.J-#R-/-*A.-;A/-0?-?3, ;J->J?-1=-.-L%2?-gR$-L-;A/-0:A-KA<-$8/-IA-.%R?-0R<-<2-+-21$?-8J?, ;%-/-:#R<2-=?-:.?-0:A-KA<-1-<R=-/-;R.-0-/A-$8/-IA-.%R?-0R-!J-;%-.$-3,:-.%, i3-0<-:I<-2-3J.-0?-.J-28A/-*A.-!R%-0-*A.-GA-35/-*A.-&/-.J-/A$8/-IA-.%R?-0R:C-!R%-*A.-.R,,
$?3-0-/A,
>J?-<2-1-<R=-KA/-5=-=?,,
.J-.$-.J-{.-<2-+-21$?,, 223 $%
>J?- <2- 1- <R=- KA/- 5=- 3.R- o=- 2:A- ;3- =?- <2- +- 3R?- /?- 2&- S$- .%- ,
28A-0R-.J-.$-2>.-3-,$-0-.J-{.-.-<2-+-21$?-?R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
509
4) The emptiness of the entity that is otherwise
Whether the buddhas appear in the world
Or whether they do not, in actual fact
The emptiness of all things,
Which is well proclaimed to be “the entity that is otherwise,” (222)
“Ultimate authenticity,” and “suchness,”
Is the emptiness of the entity that is otherwise. (223ab)
In actual fact, whether the buddhas appear in the world or not, the precise
nature, the emptiness, which is the fundamental nature of all things, can be
said to be the supreme of all, because, while not being present with an
essential makeup in any way whatsoever, it always exists. It is also well proclaimed to be the entity that is otherwise, because it is that which is realized
by outstanding wisdom; and thirdly, it is “that which is found on the other
shore,” because it transcends [the ocean of ] samsara.6
This entity that is otherwise is also called “ultimate authenticity” and
“suchness.” [This latter term is used] to indicate that it does not undergo
change. It has the defining characteristic of emptiness, and this is the emptiness of the entity that is otherwise.
3) A summary
These were taught in the Prajnaparamita
And they became widely known under these names. (223cd)
These sixteen types of emptiness as well as the four were taught in great
detail in the Prajnaparamita sutras, the Mother of all Victorious Ones, and
subsequently became widely known under these names.
510
The Moon of Wisdom
$?3-0-=, 2.J/-$*A?-gR$?-0:A->J?-<2-GA?-:$R$-0-=-:)$ ~A%-eJ??J3?-&/-3A-:.R<-2:A-5=, ?-$R%-3<-:1$?-0-$8/-9A=-IA?-$/R/,
2.J/-$*A?-gR$?-0?-.R/-$*A?-3,<-,$-0<-:I<-5=-.%-28A,
.%-0R-/A,
.J-v<-]R-PR?-9J<-IA?-$%-2-$?=-L?-0:A,,
<%-$A-=$-/-$/?-0:A-*-<-<-28A/-.,,
YA.-$?3-:.A-.$-3-=?-$.R.-/?-*J-3J.-0<,,
gR$?-+J-,-~.-2.J/-0:A-!R2?-GA?-:$R$-0<-:PR,, 224
>J<-KA/-=-z$-0<-$/?-0:A-?J3?-.0:A-,/-3R%-3A/-0:A-;R/-+/-1=-L%2eR.-/?->J?-<2-GA-{2?-mR$?-0<-2!/-0-/A, $R%-.-2>.-0:A-5=-.Jv<-.J.-0-=?-L%-2:A-]R-PR?-GA-9J<-IA?-.J-*A.-3,R%-2:A-$J$?-GA-3/-02&R3- /?- .J- *A.- GA- $%- 2- $?=- 2<- L?- 0:A- ?J3?- .0:- /A- <%- $A- =$- /$/?-0:A-*-<-<-KA-/%-1A2-3J.-.-3,R%-2-/A-.J-28A/-.-YA.-$?3-:.A-.$-3=?-$.R.-/?-*J-2-3J.-0<-gR$?-+J, .R/-.3-0<-:$R$-~R3?-=-:)$-03J.- G%- :)A$- gJ/- ,- ~.- 2.J/- 0- =- :)$- 0:A- 5K- .J:A- !R2?- GA?- 3R?- V=:$R$-0-=-~R3?-0<-:)$-0<-:PR:R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
511
3) A concluding summary expressing the qualities
of the [sixth] bhumi7
The manner in which
1) cessation is entered by means of the precise knowledge that realizes
the two truths
2) compassion does not forsake sentient beings
3) higher level bodhisattvas outshine other noble beings
4) the two types of benefit are fulfilled by realizing the two truths
1) The manner in which cessation is entered by means of the
precise knowledge that realizes the two truths
The light of such intelligence illuminates the presence [of the precise
nature].
As if they were the kyurura fruit lying in the palm of one’s own hand,
The three types of existence are realized to be unborn from the very outset
And [the bodhisattva] begins to enter cessation through the power of
conventional truth. (224)
The qualities related to the perfected stage of prajna are presented by
expressing the outstanding, excellent qualitites of the bodhisattvas who
live by prajnaparamita to an extraordinary degree.
The light of the intelligence that arises from a bodhisattva conducting such
analyses as explained above eradicates the darkness that prevents the seeing of the precise nature and illuminates its presence. The bodhisattva realizes that all three types of existence without exception are unborn from the
very outset. [He sees them] as if they were the kyurura fruit lying in the palm
of his own hand, a fruit in which everything in- and outside of it can be
seen without hindrance. Even though, ultimately speaking, there is no
entering into an absorption which is cessation, through the power of engaging in the worldly conventional truth, he begins to enter that absorption
which is a cessation [defined as] freedom from elaboration.
512
The Moon of Wisdom
$*A?-0-/A,
g$-+-:$R$-0<-$+R$?-0:A-2?3-w/-;A/-3R.-GA,,
:PR-2-3$R/-3J.-0-=-~A%-eJ:%-*J.-0<-LJ.,, 225 !#
:$R$-0-3%R/-.-L?-+J-$8/-.R/-;=-2<-:.R<-<3-8J-/, 3-;A/-+J, .J?-/Ag$-+-:$R$-0-=-~R3?-:)$-$A-/?-0-,R2-0?-.%R?-$8A:A-.?-/-M-%/-=?:.?-0<-$+R$?-0:A-2?3-0-.%-w/-0-;A/-3R.-GA, .R<-2-.%-eJ?-GA-.?/- :#R<- 2<- $+R$?- 0:A- 2lJJ- 2:A- 2?3- 0- &/- ;A/- 0?- :PR- 2- 3$R/- 3J.- =~A%-eJ-(J/-0R-;%-*J.-0<-LJ.-.R,,
$?3-0-/A,
.J-$R%-2.J-$>J$?-$?%-*J?-?%?-o?-:VA%-2&?-/A,,
3-=?-0-i3?-]R-;A?-13-0<-LJ.-0:%-;A/,, 225 $%
?J3?-.0:-?-S$-0-.J:A-$R%-<R=-2./-0-=-?R$?-0<-2.J<-$>J$?-$?%*J?-*/-,R?-.%-, ?%?-o?-:VA%-2&?-/A-<%-o=-+J-3-=?-0-i3?-]R->J?<2-GA-!R2?-GA?-13-0<-LJ.-0:%-;A/-/R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
513
2) The manner in which compassion does not
forsake sentient beings
Though, indeed, his mind is always resting in cessation,
He still generates compassion towards beings who lack a protector. (225ab)
Is the benefit of others forsaken when cessation is actualized? Not in the
slightest!
A bodhisattva has the ability to remain continually in the absorption
called “cessation.” Therefore, he indeed has a state of mind which has gone
beyond suffering (lit. “is included within nirvana”) during actual meditation. Nevertheless, during the preliminary and postmeditational practices,
he still generates compassion for sentient beings who lack a protector,
because his state of mind related to samsara is one of affectionate love.
3) The manner in which higher level bodhisattvas
outshine other noble beings
By the power of their minds, the [bodhisattvas on the bhumis] above this
[sixth] will also surpass
All those born from the tathagata’s speech, including the “middling
buddhas.” (225cd)
By the power of their prajna minds, the bodhisattvas on the bhumis above this
sixth—the seventh bhumi and onwards—will also surpass all those born
from the tathagata’s speech, namely, the shravakas and the middling buddhas,
the pratyekas.
514
The Moon of Wisdom
28A-0-/A,
!/-mR2-.J-*A.-$>R$-;%?-.!<-0R-o?-I<-0,,
%%-0:A-o=-0R-.J-/A-*J-2R:C-%%-0-;A?,,
3./-.-2.<-/?-.$J-2:A-_%-$A->$?-!R2?-GA?,,
o=-2:A-;R/-+/-o-35S:C-1-<R=-3(R$-+-:PR,, 226
?J3?-.0:-.J-!/-mR2-GA-.A/-?R$?-}<-=?-(J?-z$-0<-:2<-2-.%-, .J#R- /- *A.- .R/- .3- 2.J/- 0- gR$?- 0:A- $>R$- ;%?- <%- .R/- IA- SA- 3- 3J.- 0?.!<- 0R- o?- 0<- I<- 0:A- %%- 0:A- o=- 0R- ?J3?- .0:- ?- S$- 0- 2- .J- /A- <%- $A$.=-L-*J-2R:C-%%-0-;R/-+/-&/-.-3-;A?-3./-.-2.<-/?-5S$?-$*A?-GA.$J- 2:A- _%- $A- >$?- !R2?- GA?- o=- 2:A- ;R/- +/- 9.- 3A- >J?- >A%- $+A%- 3A.0R$?-0:A-o-35S:C-1-<R=-3(R$-+-:PR-2<-LJ.-.R,,
The Sixteen Types of Emptiness
515
4) The manner in which the two types of benefit are
fulfilled by realizing the two truths
Spreading his broad white wings of the apparent and the precise,
The king of swans soars ahead to lead the flock.
By the powerful force of virtue’s wind
They arrive at the far side of the supreme ocean of victorious qualities. (226)
The bodhisattva on the sixth bhumi is like the king of swans. His two broad
wings symbolize his realization of the precise nature, genuine reality; and his
qualities related to apparent reality, namely his generosity and so on, which
blaze with even greater resplendence than before. That they are white illustrates that he is not stained by self-concern. By spreading these wings of
myriad qualities he soars ahead to lead the flock of beings who are his students. By the powerful force of virtue’s wind, which comprises the two accumulations, they arrive at the far side of the supreme ocean of victorious qualities
which know no end and cannot be fathomed.
Based on the explanations and guidance of Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso
Rinpoche, translated by Birgit Scott with invaluable help from Ari Goldfield and Jim Scott.
Notes
Notes to the Translators’ Preface
1 Tibetan: dbu ma rtsa ba shes rab; Sanskrit: Mula-madhyamaka-karika.
2 Chandrakirti, whose name means “Famous Moon,” was an Indian master of approximately the seventh century A.D. and was a famous exponent of the Middle Way Consequence School (Sanskrit: Prasangika Madhyamaka).
3 Long sections of Mikyö Dorje’s commentary are highly subtle descriptions of the philosophical schools’ views that Chandrakirti refutes, and others are refutations of different Tibetan scholars’ interpretations of Chandrakirti’s text itself. These sections are
not essential to developing a comprehensive understanding of Chandrakirti’s verses
themselves, and in addition, it is possible to lose the key points of meaning in these
auxiliary sections’ complexity. Rinpoche therefore directed that these sections not be
translated in this book.
4 The Tibetan text appearing in this book is reprinted with permission from a digital
version provided by and copyright © Nitartha international; all rights reserved.
Nitartha international has also published Karmapa Mikyö Dorje’s commentary,
unabridged, in Mikyö Dorje (Eighth Karmapa), dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rnam bshad dpal
ldan dus gsum mkhyen pa’i zhal lung dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta zhes bya ba bzhugs
so (The Chariot of the Siddhas of the Dakpo Kagyü: an Extended Commentary on the Madhyamakavatara) (Seattle: Nitartha international, 1996).
Please see www.nitartha.org for more information on the Nitartha international
Tibetan text preservation and digitization program.
5 For more information on Rinpoche’s life, teachings, and activities, please see
www.ktgrinpoche.org.
6 Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso, Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness (Oxford:
Longchen Foundation, 1986). Available in the USA from Snow Lion Publications
(www.snowlionpub.com) and in Europe from Wisdom Books:
www.wisdom-books.com.
7 Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso, The Sun of Wisdom (Boston: Shambhala Publications,
2003).
8 Introduction to the Middle Way, translated by the Padmakara Translation Group.
Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2002.
9 Learn more about the programs offered by Nitartha Institute at:
www.nitarthainstitute.org.
518
The Moon of Wisdom
Notes to Part I
1 Page and line numbers in brackets refer to the 1996 Nitartha international Tibetan
edition (see Translators’ Preface, n. 4).
2 In the overall outline of the text, this entire chapter comes under section 2.2.2.1.1.6.
3 The first of the ten noble bodhisattva grounds.
4 Clean, dirty, pleasant, unpleasant, good, and bad are examples of attributes.
5 Defining characteristics refer to the phenomenon that is a basis to which a name is given,
as opposed to the name itself. For example, “hot and burning” are the defining characteristics to which the name “fire” is given.
6 This means that all phenomena are naturally peace—open, spacious, and relaxed.
7 Meaning that phenomena’s true nature cannot be conceived of as existent, nonexistent, permanent, extinct, something, nothing, or any other label that thoughts can fabricate.
8 The reflection of the moon appearing in a pool of water.
9 The sixth bodhisattva ground has two names: the Manifest and, as appears above in
verse 1, the Approach.
10 Since this ancillary explanation is not a commentary on any specific root verse, it is not
translated here.
11 The Samkhyas, or Enumerators, are an Indian non-Buddhist philosophical school.
12 Pervasion is a technical term of Buddhist logic. If there is pervasion in a logical reasoning, it means that a certain consequence necessarily follows from the reason given. For
example, in the statement “Where there is smoke, there is fire” pervasion exists, but in
the statement “Where there is smoke, there is a sandalwood fire” there is no pervasion.
Here specifically, the Middle Way points out that since a sprout that arose from itself
would be arising from a sprout that already existed in the seed, at the same time, the
seed should also arise again from itself. That the Samkhyas might accept the reason but
not the pervasion, the necessity of this consequence, means that they might accept that
the sprout arises again from the sprout that existed in the seed, but not the consequence
of that belief, which would be that the seed would also arise again.
13 Meaning that the Samkhya School does not accept that if things arose from themselves,
it necessarily follows that causes would arise again and again until the end of existence.
14 The Tibetan literally translated reads, “Therefore that cause destroys the seed and the
sprout comes into being.” However, Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche explains that the
Tibetan rgyu, translated as “cause,” should be read as rgyu mtshan, meaning “reason,”
and the reason refers to the sprout itself.
15 The Vaisheshikas, or Differentialists, are an Indian non-Buddhist philosophical school.
16 Not translated here.
17 The four conditions that appear to come together and produce a result in conventional
reality are: the causal condition, the empowering condition, the focal condition, and
the immediately preceding condition. In the case of an instant of eye-sense-conscious-
Notes to Part I
519
ness, its causal condition is a preceding moment of consciousness, its immediately preceding condition is the cessation of that preceding moment of consciousness, its focal
condition is the object perceived by the eye-sense-consciousness, and its empowering
condition is the eye-sense-faculty.
18 The Particularist School (Sanskrit: Vaibhashika) is a Buddhist philosophical tenet
system.
19 This treatise is Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.
20 A tirthika is someone who desires liberation and uses reasoning to analyze the nature
of phenomena in search of it, but who does not use proper analysis or come to an accurate understanding. See shes bya kun khyab mdzod, The Treasury Which is an Encyclopedia of Knowledge, Padma Karpo Translation Committee electronic edition (Nepal,
2000), vol. 2, pp. 168-169.
21 According to Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, the two types of ignorance are “afflicted
ignorance,” corresponding to the afflictive obscurations (nyon mongs pa’i sgrib pa), and
“unafflicted ignorance,” corresponding to the cognitive obscurations (shes bya’i sgrib
pa).
22 This is the logical reasoning that Nagarjuna uses to prove that the eyes and the other
sense faculties do not truly perceive outer objects in The Fundamental Wisdom of the
Middle Way, Chapter 3, verse 2: “The seer does not see itself. How could that which
does not see itself ever see something else?”
If the seeing eye were truly existent, it would have to exist independent of causes
and conditions. It would therefore exist independent of there being a focal condition
of any outer object to see. If that were the case, the eye would have to see itself. Since
it does not see itself, however, its seeing exists only in dependence upon causes and conditions, and therefore it does not truly see anything else.
23 The next three verses (34-36) are Chandrakirti’s refutation of “validly established conventional reality” (tha snyad tshad grub). Those who believe in validly established conventional reality assert that relative phenomena have objective existence; that they
validly exist from their own side, by virtue of their own specific characteristics. Chandrakirti shows how this is not the case; he demonstrates that phenomena in relative
reality have no valid, objective existence, but are merely conceptual projections, just
like phenomena in dreams.
For Khenpo Rinpoche’s extensive explanation of these three verses, please see “Like
a Dream,” Bodhi Magazine, Volume 6, Issue 3 (December 2003), pp. 14-25 and pp. 4043.
24 Khenpo Rinpoche explains that this reason could alternatively be read to mean,
“because he described it in the way that he did in order to get his disciples to enter into
the true nature of all things.”
Notes to Part II
1 In preparing this translation, I have relied primarily upon the edition of Karmpa Mikyö
Dorje’s commentary that was published by the Sixteenth Gyalwang Karmapa,
Rangjung Rigpe Dorje. I have also consulted the edition published by Nitartha international. Bibliographical information for both editions is given in the List of Works
520
The Moon of Wisdom
Cited that follows this translation. The numbers given with the headings indicate the
corresponding page in the edition published by the Sixteenth Karmapa.
Khenpo Rinpoche asked that we translate only those portions of Mikyö Dorje’s
commentary that bear directly upon Chandrakırti’s verses. For that reason, I have omitted the Karmapa’s discussion of other topics, however interesting they may be. A note
at the end of each section identifies the point at which the translation begins and also
the point at which it ends. As a whole, this portion of Mikyö Dorje’s commentary corresponds to section 2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.2 in the outline for Part I of this book.
2 409:6-410:2
3 The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (CD-ROM version 3.0) gives several meanings
for “energy.”Among them we find: “Power not necessarily manifested in action; ability or capacity to produce an effect.” This expresses nicely the meaning that nus pa has
here.
4 410:2-5
5 Mikyö Dorje appears to have compressed Chandrakırti’s explanation of this point
severely. Chandrakırti puts it this way:
A rope can be mistaken for a snake; without the contingent reason, this would
be unsuitable. Earth and so forth can be mistaken for a vase; without the contingent reason—earth and so forth—such would not arise with respect to the
element of space.
This comment appears in Chandrakırti’s Explanation of the “Entrance to the Middle Way” at 88:7-89:1 of the edition published by the Sixteenth Karmapa. In Mikyö
Dorje’s commentary, I now move from 411:3 to 412:2, omitting the intervening lines.
6 412:2-3
7 413:2-4
8 413:5-6
9 415:3-5
10 415:5-416:4
11 419:4-6
12 420:1-3
13 422:5-423:1
14 423:2-4
15 This refers to the reason that concludes the previous section: “This is because, in the
absence of an object, a cognition possessing an object is not established.”
16 This refers to the consequence that Chandrakırti has just drawn from the assertion of
cognition in the absence of objects, which can be stated in this way: It follows that those
whose eyes are not affected by disease would also see strands of hair.
17 423:4-6
18 424:1-4
19 424:4-5
Notes to Part II
521
20 424:5-425:2
21 425:4-5
22 425:5-426:2
23 426:2-5
24 426:5-427:1
25 Both Chandrakırti’s verse and Mikyö Dorje’s commentary emphasize that the two consciousnesses are mutually other, and they do so by qualifying each consciousness as
“other” in relation to the “other” consciousness. In English, this sounds odd. Reluctant to modify the texts that I am translating, I have stayed with the letter of the original, despite the awkward and potentially confusing result. The meaning of the passage
may be expressed in a simpler form: If a consciousness arises from the energy of another
consciousness, then it arises from what is other than itself. For Chandrakırti and other
advocates of the Middle Way, that presents problems.
26 Here, Mikyö Dorje cites the second line from the fourteenth verse of the sixth chapter
of Chandrakırti’s Entrance to the Middle Way.
27 Just as the tongue of a flame and thick darkness are mutually other, to no less a degree
the consciousness that placed energy in the base of all and the consciousness that comes
out of the ripening of that energy are mutually other.
28 427:6-428:4
29 428:6-429:2
30 429:2-5
31 429:5-430:2
32 430:3-6
33 431:4-5
34 431:6-432:2
35 432:2-5
36 432:5-6
37 432:6-433:1
38 433:2-6
39 434:1-3
40 434:6-435:2
41 435:2-5
42 435:5-6
43 447:2-3
44 448:1-3
45 453:1-3
46 454:3-6
47 456:3-6
522
The Moon of Wisdom
48 460:3-5
49 461:2-4
50 461:4-462:1
51 This echoes and refers to the second line of verse 47. Note the shift from btags, which
I have translated as designate, to brtags, which I have translated as ideational.
52 463:3-4
53 463:4-464:1
54 464:2-6
55 Chapter 24, verse 10
56 464:6-465:5
57 467:1-4
58 468:5-469:2
59 469:6-470:3
60 475:6-476:3
61 477:2-5
62 477:5-478:1
63 479:4-480:1
64 480:1-4
65 482:6-483:3; 484:1-2
66 484:2-3
67 484:3-5
68 485:1-3
69 485:3-4
70 Here, mothers (yum) means the SÒtras on Transcendent and Incisive Knowledge (shes rab
kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i mdo, prajñ›p›ramit›sÒtra).
71 Such phrases recur frequently in the literature on incisive and transcendent knowledge.
It is not clear to me that Mikyö Dorje has any particular passage in mind. An inquisitive student of this literature would do well to consult Donald S. Lopez, Jr., The Heart
SÒtra Explained: Indian and Tibetan Commentaries (Albany: State University of New
York Press, 1988).
72 485:4-6
73 485:6-486:1
74 486:1-2
75 486:2-487:1
76 487:3-6
77 490:4-6
Notes to Part III
523
78 Mikyö Dorje has marked this phrase with a particle that indicates a citation. For that
reason, I have placed these words within quotation marks. The syntax and meter of the
phrase, gang gis brjod bya drang nges don (491:1), suggests that he is thinking of a verse
that he knows from elsewhere. However, I have not found his source and unfortunately
cannot identify it here.
79 491:1-3; 492:1-2
Notes to Part III
1 Not translated here.
2 Verse 8c.
3 Verse 14ab.
4 “Existence beyond this world” refers to an individual’s future lifetimes.
5 A non-Buddhist Indian philosophical school. Its proponents assert that the physical
elements are the causes of consciousness and everything else constituting sentient
beings. The Charvakas therefore do not assert past and future lives or karmic causes
and results, because they claim that when sentient beings are born, they simply arise
naturally from a combination of the elements, and when they die, this combination of
the elements falls apart, and they dissolve back into nothingness.
From the Middle Way’s perspective, this assertion that the mind arises anew from
the elements is an assertion of causeless arising, because it is an assertion that the first
moment of mind in the present life is not preceded by its cause—the last moment of
mind in the past life.
6 In other words, the Charvakas believe that future lifetimes do not exist because when
the truly existent physical body that they posit ceases to exist, that cessation is final and
absolute, and so at the same time that this occurs, the consciousness that they claim
arises from the body also experiences a complete and final cessation. As the Middle Way
points out, however, the physical body does not truly exist, nor does it truly arise or
cease. Rather, it is a dependently arisen mere appearance, and, therefore, the causes for
the appearance of a physical body are freely able to come together in all future lifetimes
to come.
Thus it is not the Middle Way proponents of emptiness who are nihilists, but rather
the Charvakas who are, because they assert that this physical world truly exists now,
and after it ceases, there is nothing. Since the Middle Way, in contrast, describes appearances as dependently arisen and empty of inherent nature, appearance-emptiness
undifferentiable, the Middle Way transcends both extremes of permanence and extinction (see verse 33).
7 In other words, this conclusion that things would be nonexistent conventionally does
not necessarily follow from the fact that they do not truly exist.
8 Ratna-megha-sutra, dkon mchog sprin gyi mdo
9 Both the Particularist and Sutra schools are Buddhist philosophical tenet systems;
specifically, they belong to the Shravaka Vehicle.
10 A Treasury of Abhidharma (Tibetan: chos mngon pa mdzod) by Vasubandhu (Tibetan:
dbyig gnyen)
524
The Moon of Wisdom
Notes to Part IV
1 This bracketed number refers to the page number of the Tibetan text used (see Translators’ Preface, n. 4), as do all of the following that occur throughout this section of the
text at regular intervals as left-hand line headings, from [499] to [572]. The bracketed
numbers appended to verses of root text are the numbers of those verses. All verses of
root text have been translated in meter, though the number of metrical feet vary. The
majority are in iambic pentameter.
2 This corresponds to section 2.3.1.1.2 in the outline given near the beginning of Part I
of this book.
3 “Personal self,” gang zag gi bdag, is also rendered “self of the person.” In this phrase, it
is gang zag (Sanskrit pudgala) which is translated “person” or “personal.”
4 rnal ‘bjor pa means “yogis” but is understood throughout this text to apply to females
as well as males. Here it has been translated mentioning both for clarity’s sake. Elsewhere it has been left as in Tibetan for brevity’s sake.
5 grangs can pa, the Enumerators.
6 skyes bu (Sanskrit purusha) has, throughout this section dealing with the absence of self,
been translated “individual” wherever the term is used synonymously with “person.”
7 According to the Samkhya view, the prakriti (Tibetan rang bzhin), primordial matter,
is the cause of all things, not the self. The self is the one who experiences what prakriti
creates.
8 For example, that the self is described by the Samkhyas as being inactive does not correspond to the instinctive notion of self.
9 These two lines of verse in Tibetan expand to four lines of verse in English.
10 “Some of our own systems” means some Buddhist schools, in this case the Sammitiya,
mang pos bkur ba, one of the eighteen Vaibhashika schools of the Hinayana. These
eighteen can be categorized in terms of four main schools, one of which is the Sammitiya.
11 “Primary mind,” gtso sems, means the sixfold collection of consciousness, the five sensory and the rational. The school referred to here is still the Sammitiya, some of whom
say that all five skandhas are the basis for the view of self, others that only the skandha
of consciousness, or primary mind, is such a base.
12 Even though these three subdivisions are not listed in this edition of the Eighth
Karmapa’s commentary, later numbering in the outline of this work and the inclusion
of these three in Rendawa’s commentary strongly indicate their presence in an earlier
edition. They have, therefore, been included here. The page numbers of the earlier edition referred to were not included in the Tibetan footnote from which this note is taken.
13 Lit. “existing in the three times.”
14 In Chandrakirti’s Autocommentary and Rendawa’s commentary, the phrase in the quotation is lnga po ‘di (“these five”). In Mikyö Dorje’s commentary it is phung po ‘di (“these
skandhas”). The translation here follows the former version.
15 In other words, the self would be just as perceptible to an eye consciousness as the color
blue.
16 This refers to the Vatsiputriyas; see n. 19.
17 I.e., during the first turning of the wheel of Dharma.
Notes to Part IV
525
18 The “others” here refers to non-Buddhists who claim the self to be an internal agent
that is different from the skandhas.
19 The Vatsiputriya, gnas ma bu, is one of the eighteen schools of the Vaibhashika and a
subschool of the Sammitiya (see n. 10). Some of the essentials of their position emerge
in the following pages.
20 I.e., the relationship imagined between self and skandhas.
21 A kindred cause, nye bar len pa’i rgyu, is one whose result is the “same continuum of
the same substance,” rdzas gchig rgyun gchig; e.g., a sprout belongs to the continuum
of the seed and is of the same substance. In other words, the sprout and seed are of the
same nature or makeup, in that the seed is the material out of which the sprout is made.
The point here is that skandhas and self could not be of the same essential makeup,
because they do not involve this type of cause-effect relationship.
22 Chags pa, translated “manifesting as”; it seems the term could not here have its other
main sense of “desiring,” because, for a self to desire a form, it would have to be different from the form, but that was what was refuted by the earlier sutras. The point here
is the refutation of self as identical with the skandhas.
23 A collection does not exist substantially but only as a generalization expressed under
one name.
24 The term ming bzhi, here translated as “the… four [operations providing the names
of things] referred to as ‘the naming-skandhas,’ ” is equivalent to ming gzhi‘i phung po,
which occurs in the commentary to verse 144, there translated as “the skandhas which
are bases for naming.” See n. 35.
25 This point traces back to the outline preceding verse 127. It means, as indicated in the
commentary to verses 138 and 139, that self is an imputation relative to the dhatus,
ayatanas, and eighteen activities of mind which the Buddha is here cited as equating
with the person. This point is taken up again in the outline preceding verse 150d, where
it is elaborated on in much greater detail.
26 Since the root text translation has been rendered in meter, it sometimes exhibits the
terseness typical of metrical expression. Brevity has been taken to such lengths in the
original Sanskrit works and their Tibetan translations that they are virtually, and sometimes entirely, unintelligible without the commentaries. A similar degree of brevity has
not been adopted in the English translation of the root text here, but some clarification of syntax may occasionally be required.
The first two lines of verse 139 state the reason for the statement made in 138, which
explains why 138 ends with a comma. To paraphrase these six lines, the Buddha taught
that the “self” is just a name applied to the six capacities and six supports for contact,
since he clearly taught that it, i.e., the idea of self, comes from apprehending the phenomena of mind and mental events.
27 Sutra of the Meeting of Father and Son (Pitiputrasamigama-sutra; yab dang rsas mjal ba’i
mdo).
28 Sanskrit, dhatu; Tibetan, khams ; “elements” or, more specifically, “potentials,” or, as
in this verse of root text, “capacities.”
29 “Not identical with,” lit. “not something that is not different from.”
30 This point, with its two subdivisions, concludes the section refuting the position that
the skandhas literally comprise a self. “The Buddhist views just refuted” refers to the
various ways the skandhas are held to be a self, as described and refuted in this section.
526
The Moon of Wisdom
31 In other words, realizing that there is no self as self is defined in non-Buddhist schools
of philosophy cannot eliminate the instinctive idea of self, since the latter is not produced by the former.
32 “Body,” gzugs, lit. “form.”
33 I.e., it would not make sense here to speak of “having,” since the two would be one and
the same thing.
34 In this context, one could take the body of someone as exemplifying “the object
observed”; and thinking it is a self, that there is a self that possesses it, etc. are the ideas
one has about it.
35 This term, ming gzhi’i phung po, “the skandhas which are bases for naming,” is synonymous with the four mental skandhas: feeling, discrimination, karmic formation, and
consciousness.
36 “Agent,” byed po, also translates as “creator,” depending on context.
37 In brief, as Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche summarized it, “The Vatsiputriyas say that,
although the self cannot be expressed, it is substantially existent because all of its substantial functions can be seen.”
38 “This person is not actually perceptible itself,” gang zag de rang gi ngo bos shes bya min,
translates more literally as “this person is not knowable by way of its own essence.” The
inexpressible person described in this verse is essential to personal self as defined by the
Vatsiputriyas.
39 The Tibetan for “knowable” or “object of knowledge” is shes bya, which more literally
means “an object of consciousness.” The same term is also translated here as “perceptible.”
40 “Per se,” rang gi ngo bo nyid kyis, translated literally as “by virtue of its very own essence.”
41 This traces back to the extensive section of outline preceding verse 121.
42 Of the three main points comprising this entire subject, the absence of personal self,
this is the third. See outline preceding verse 120.
43 “Function,” bya, can alternatively be translated as “the action performed.”
44 “A whole,” yan lag can, lit. “part possessor.”
45 This means that the two preceding points, the refutation of the parts and the refutation of the proposition that there could be a whole without parts, are both included
under the two points that follow, namely, the refutation of the mere collection and the
general refutation of the shape. A separate explanation of the second point, the refutation of a whole without parts, is nevertheless given below.
46 This is another way of saying “the refutation of the whole,” as is borne out by verse
152cd.
47 Here, “whole” is tshogs pa can, lit. “the possessor or bearer of the collection.”
48 This is a reference to the Vaibhashika system, which claims the true existence of the
outer, physical world by positing the existence of rdul rdzas brgyad, here translated as
“eight-particle substances.” Although each of the eight particles is claimed by proponents of this school to be partless, they further state that wherever one of the eight is
present, all eight are automatically present, forming a gong bu, a globule or atomic unit
said to be the gzhi or basis of all matter experienced in the desire realm. Though each
Notes to Part IV
527
of the eight is said to be partless, these eight are nevertheless said to comprise the parts
of the globule. The internal contradictions in this position are exposed and the basic
position refuted in various ways by higher schools, but here the Madhyamikas, represented by Chandrakirti, refute any supposed true existence of such a basic atomic unit
by referring to the seven-point analysis. That is to say, the same argument that applies
to a carriage and its parts would apply equally to a globule and its parts, thus excluding any substantial existence of either, leaving both with mere imputed existence.
49 To restate the argument here briefly, since parts and a whole and so forth only exist relative to each other, it would be illogical to claim that the parts exist but the whole does
not. For the same reason, to demonstrate the lack of substantial existence of the whole
is to demonstrate the lack of substantial existence of the parts. Other reasons for the
nonexistence of both have also been presented above. Nevertheless, to indiscriminately
proclaim this lack of existence, which is in contradiction to common consensus, is illadvised, due to the risk of generating nihilistic views.
50 I.e., the parts, when analyzed with prajna, would be detectable as existing with a substantial makeup of their own, but that is not the case.
51 That is to say, without the whole there would be no parts.
52 This traces back to the section of outline preceding verse 151.
53 An alternate translation of “supported and unsupported” as used here would be “stable and unstable.”
54 Alternatively, “And because of this, it is not something stable that arose in the bygone
past.”
55 This refers to Nagarjuna’s major text (Mulamadhyamakakarika, rtsa ba’i shes rab), of
which our present work is a commentary. It is referred to above as The Treatise on the
Middle Way and elsewhere as The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. Any citation in this work that quotes “the treatise” refers to this text.
56 Alternatively, “To say that it arose in the past….”
57 Alternatively, “The self is not something unstable either.”
58 The “frame of reference,” ‘jug yul, for a farmer is a field with its soil, seeds, moisture,
fertilizer, warmth, etc. Given that as the frame of reference, or environment, the farmer
can produce a crop. When the skandhas, with their consciousnesses, faculties, objects
of consciousness, etc., are thought of as “mine,” they are the ‘jug yul, or frame of reference with respect to which the “I” creates “mine.”
In other contexts, such as that of inferential valid cognition, ‘jug yul translates as
“object of engagement” or “engaged object.” When smoke is seen, one infers fire. Here,
fire is the object engaged or referred to, i.e., experienced, through the medium of inference.
Considering both of these cases together, ‘jug yul applies both to the object engaged
and the medium or environment through which it is engaged.
59 The Tibetan here is phrad, which literally means “to meet” or “make contact.” The
term, however, is used throughout the following verses with a variety of meanings, not
all of which translate idiomatically with either of these terms. Here, for example, the
argument is that cause and result, to be tenable, must either merge (lit. “meet”) in the
sense of having some common meeting ground, some shared identical factor, or not.
They are demonstrated to do neither and this is how the process of cause and effect is
here invalidated as having any substantial existence.
528
The Moon of Wisdom
60 “Identical factor,” nus pa gcig pa, more literally translates as “same potential.”
61 The criterion for a necessary meeting or lack of it would only apply where true existence is being asserted for the refutation and what is being refuted, or any other pair of
factors. Since the Madhyamikas do not assert this, the consequence mentioned does
not apply to them.
62 I.e., by the sun’s literally coming down into the water.
63 An example of their being out of touch due to some other substance would be a body
of water covered by clouds or a container of water covered by a lid. If the reflection
could occur without sun and water meeting, it could occur in such cases.
64 This means that, although reasoning belongs strictly to conventional truth that accords
with common consensus at the unexamined level, it is able to refute and eliminate
wrong views and afford correct understanding of the subject under investigation.
65 “Others” here refers to the Madhyamikas, whose views are “other” than those of the
Proponents of Truly Existent Things, or Realists.
66 In certain cases, a proof is established on the basis of rtags, “evidence,” also translated
as “sign.” “And so on” refers to the other types of reasons that can constitute a proof.
Notes to Part V
1 This corresponds to section 2.3.1.2 in the outline given near the beginning of Part I of
this book.
2 This corresponds to section 2.3.2 in the outline.
3 Here Mikyö Dorje is criticizing the Jonangpas for clinging to the concept of the buddha nature as the emptiness that is the true nature of reality, and the Gedenpas for
clinging to the concept of a nonaffirming negation as the emptiness that is the true
nature of reality. By asserting the existence of emptiness, Mikyö Dorje claims, these
two schools miss the point of this fourth of sixteen emptinesses, which is that emptiness itself is also empty of any essence; that emptiness itself is empty of being able to
be described by any concept of what it might be.
4 Rinpoche explains that “the direct access to everything possible” means “the direct
knowledge of everything possible.”
5 The definition of form, Tibetan gzugs, is here translated very literally, but could also
be translated “anything taking physical appearance.” In general, “form” refers either
to the skandha of form, the physical world, or to the outer ayatana of form, any object
for an eye consciousness. In the first case, “form” covers the five senses and their objects:
the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, forms, sounds, smells, tastes and bodily sensations.
However, since the Sautrantika School defines a variety of phenomena, vows for example, as being physical entities which enter and make up the body, the more literal translation has been chosen.
6 In Chandrakirti’s autocommentary, “ the entity that is otherwise” is “other” in that it
is 1) always existing; 2) that which is realized by wisdom; and 3) transcending samsara.
Relative phenomena are none of these things.
7 This corresponds to major point 3 in the outline at the very beginning of Part I of this
book.
Related papers
Integrated gas dynamic and thermodynamic computational modeling of multicylinder 4-stroke spark ignition engine using gasoline as a fuel
Thermal Science, 2009
A Study to Assess the Knowledge of Radio Imaging Technology Among Students Towards Handling the Radiographic Modalities
International Journal For Research In Health Sciences And Nursing
„Krwawa droga” i „czarowna jazda”. Z socjologii podróży w wieku XIX
„Teksty Drugie”, 2017
The Graffitour of the 13: an aesthetic, political and historical trajectory through Medellín
Vibrant, 2018
Matteo Majorano (a cura di), La Giostra dei sentimenti
Studi Francesi, 2016
Deep Learning-based DDoS Detection in Network Traffic Data
International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering Systems, 2024
Analisis Data Menggunakan Algoritma Pararel Matriks Shuffle Transpose Menggunakan Bahasa Pemrograman C#
Journal of Technology and Informatics (JoTI), 2020
115 Spatial dissection of T cell clonotype identity, transcriptional profiles, and cell-cell interactions in the tumor microenvironment and tertiary lymphoid structures
Regular and Young Investigator Award Abstracts
Local magnetic states in La1−xSrxMnO3 and Nd1−xSrxMnO3
Physica B: Condensed Matter, 2000
The role of pharmacovigilance in patient safety in the COVID-19 pandemic
VITTALLE - Revista de Ciências da Saúde