So now we have reached the fourth
and final stage of the teaching.
We're talking about the Mahayana already
because in the Third Attachment,
attachment to the self-benefit,
we saw the antidote was none other than Bodhicitta.
But that Bodhicitta was actually,
Bodhicitta that operates in a framework of conventional truth.
Conventional truth meaning how things appear to be
when we don't really examine them.
Where there's the world of self and other,
cause and effect, and so on and so forth.
But now we come to the Fourth Attachment
and it's an attachment of the most subtle kind
because it's an attachment to wrong views,
wrong views of the nature of reality.
Manjusri said to Sachen Kunga Nyingpo,
"If clinging arises to signs and characteristics,
then one doesn't have the view."
And by view here he means the correct view,
the view of reality as it is,
because we cannot awaken from samsara,
we cannot achieve buddhahood without that,
because the cause of samsara is precisely
the, not just the obscuration of the disturbing emotions,
but the more subtle obscuration of obscuration of knowledge:
our way of understanding the true nature of phenomena,
the true nature of reality.
Ignorance is the root cause of samsara.
So it has to be abolished,
it has to be cut through for us to arrive at Buddhahood
for the benefit of others.
Simply training in compassion,
simply training in the conventional Bodhicitta is wonderful,
but it's not the whole of the path.
That compassion must be united with wisdom
to lead us to Buddhahood,
and that is the remit of the teaching,
the antidote for the Fourth,
for the Fourth Attachment.
So what does Manjusri mean by 'clinging to signs
and substantiality'?
That clinging is encapsulated in wrong views,
and as Lord Buddha pointed out,
there are two primary wrongs views that underlie,
that really all
wrong views
that we can cling to,
and that are expressed in different philosophies embody.
These are the clinging to eternalism,
and the clinging to annihilationism.
And that is to day that apart from the Mahayana teaching
of the Buddha,
expressed in the Madhyamaka school of tenets,
all of the views outside of Dharma and even inside Dharma
have either gross or subtle tendencies
of these two extremes.
Eternalist view, outside of Buddhism
is kind of encapsulating theism,
the idea that there are entities that endure forever,
and that these entities are either created
by some chief entity, a god,
or all expressions of this chief entity,
kind of like Brahman, or universal substance.
They usually, of course they incorporate theories of past
and future lives, or at least future lives,
in the sense of Judeo-Christianity and Islam,
or past lives as well as future lives in Hinduism,
but they're all, in a sense expressive of this sense
that there are permanent things, eternal things.
The opposite side, the opposite wrong view,
is annihilationism.
Annihilationism is the denial of connection,
the denial of any connection between cause and effect,
and therefore, between past and future lives.
For them, for annihilationist views,
the mind is not really existent,
it is simply kind of a
all matter,
there's only matter,
and when the matter is, kind of disintegrates
then there'll be no future lives,
just as there's no past lives.
So one's actions will not produce fruit in the future,
and therefore it 's called 'cut off thought' technically,
or we could say annihilationist thought.
Even within dharma,
within the Sravaka system
and even within the Mind Only system of Madhyamaka,
there's not something as gross as the eternalist views
of the non-Buddhists,
but there's still a kind of clinging to the idea that
some phenomena have a kind of reality,
whether it's momentary atoms
and momentary moments of conciseness in the Sravakayana,
or a kind of permanent,
a permanent series of mental events in the Mind Only.
Therefore, there's something to cling to.
So liberation cannot be attained in that way.
So we need to develop the correct perspective,
which is the Middle Way perspective.
Not middle way between,
halfway between eternalism and annihilationism,
but the middle way that sees reality clearly as it is,
and therefore dissolves the extremism
of both of these views.
The annihilationist on one side,
and the eternalist in the other.
Because the Middle Way view,
sees that all phenomena are
empty of any intrinsic nature,
and therefore not permanent,
precisely because they all arise
from the combination of causes and conditions,
or out of the agglomeration of parts.
Nothing stands alone.
Nothing exists in itself.
Everything is interdependent
and therefore lacking intrinsic nature, therefore empty.
So there is continuity, there is interdependence,
and at the same time, there is no abiding substance.
There is no abiding substance,
there's nothing that we can cling to and say
"This is real", but neither is there simple nothingness,
and discontinuity as in the annihilationist view.
That is the Madhyamaka view expressed by the great masters
such as Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva, and in India,
and then followed by the great masters of the Sakya
and other schools in Tibet.
But how do we experientially arrive at that view,
which will dissolve both extremes,
and see reality as it truly is,
empty and dependent arising?
For that we need not just to hear the teachings
and think about them intellectually,
and gain confidence in them intellectually,
which is good and necessary,
but we need to meditate,
because unless we dispel the wrongs views,
the subtle traces of wrong views in our heart,
emotionally we'll still hanker after the extreme views,
and therefore we will not be experientially liberated.
So we need to meditate,
to take the teachings as it were from the intellectual
to the experiential dimension in our heart.
And that means, according to the Zhenpa Zhidrel teachings,
of Jetsun Drakpa Gyaltsen, Sakya Pandita, Sonam Tsemo,
and the other followers in the Sakya tradition,
who came after Sachen Kunga Nyingpo.
We need to meditate on calm abiding,
insight, Vipassana that is, and finally unify the two.
Why?
Why do we begin with calm abiding,
why not go straight to insight, to wisdom?
Because the mind that is unstable
due to the conceptual agitation and emotional agitation,
cannot focus on the nature of things, cannot see,
like a microscope that is unfocused,
it has the potential to see the structure of things
but it cannot, because it's not focused.
So a mind needs this focusing that Samatha,
calm abiding will bring about.
So initially in meditation we train in calm abiding,
and the definition of calm abiding is the mind,
resting one pointedly in it's own nature,
so that it is focused in one pointedness,
and settled evenly,
so it is unbroken in it's attentiveness,
and it's stability.
Like an ocean that has become calm of the agitating waves,
such is the condition of the mind in samatha.
And when the ocean has become calm
from the disturbing waves,
we can see into it's depths.
Similarly, in meditation when we have achieved Samatha,
that is something that persists
throughout both meditation sessions and into everyday life,
our mind is really flexible and clear,
and now we can apply it in investigation
of the nature of phenomena.
And that is the process that we call Vipassana,
or insight meditation.
There are taught in the sutras and shastras,
there are various methods of meditating Vipassana.
But in the Zhenpa Zhidrel,
we generally practice it in this way;
by a series of kind of analytical investigations.
The mind in calmness looks,
first of all it looks at the relation between the mind
and whatever appears to the mind.
Our habitual ignorance makes us think
that there's a duality there,
that there is mind on one side,
my mind, the subject, and external phenomena,
but actually, and therefore it clings to this,
and perpetuates it's sense of separateness,
it's sense of identity, of solidity,
by preserving that dualistic interpretation.
But when we look at this
relationship between mind and appearances,
in deep meditation,
we see that actually all these phenomena;
sounds, visuals, phenomena,
smells, whatever it is that seems to be external,
is actually in fact arising dependently
upon the mind itself.
Not as something separate,
but in fact as a projection of mind itself.
Because if it truly existed externally
I would not be able to experience it.
There would be a gap or a gulf between me.
Further more, when I look at these appearances,
I see how they come about
in the ripening upon my mental habits, upon my imprints.
What arises as the external world for me,
is totally dependent upon the ripening of these patterns
of past experience,
karmically present within my mind.
So, in fact, it's like a dream:
what appears to be separate
is like images seen in a dream.
At night I go to sleep,
various phenomena seem to happen to me,
and I respond to them as if they're real,
as if they're solid and separate,
and I react therefore with distress,
or happiness, or joy.
But on awakening,
I realize that they never existed separately,
they were nothing other than the play of mind.
So it is when I really deeply examine all appearances.
And in this way, therefore, the great sense
of gap or difference between myself and the world dissolves,
there's a fluidity
between me and the world,
rather than a gap and a gulf,
and a subject/object dichotomy,
all appearances are arising from mind.
But then I might think,
'But that means the mind is something solid.'
But actually, if there's no solid appearances out there,
there can be no solid subject, me, who's seeing them either.
Both are mutually dependent.
No solid objects means no solid subject.
So it's not like it's a world of my mind,
there is no 'my' there
to be the possessor of those appearances,
they are mutually dependent
and therefore mutually without reality.
In fact, whatever appears, whatever appearances arise,
are appearing through dependence upon causes and conditions.
Therefore they are not conjured
by a mind as if a mind was a kind of universal thinker
or a universal subject.
They are arising
due to the ripening of particular karmic imprints.
Due to conditions,
particular karmic imprints come up in my mind
and give rise to the appearances that seem to be real,
seem to be solid.
But they are just like, in fact if I examine them,
we see they'are no more real than seeing a reflection
of the moon in the water.
In that case, one sees a moon in the water
one may think it is solid,
one may even be tempted to try
and abstract it from the water.
But if one went into the water,
one would see it disappeared,
because it was no more real
than what is produced by the conjunction
of the satellite of the Earth in the sky,
a cloudless sky, and a pool of water.
It was an illusory appearance arising through conditions.
So it is with the appearances that arise.
So there is no mind that's their basis,
they are just illusory phenomena.
Now my understanding is sharp,
is very powerful,
but I still may think,
'But these appearances, these illusory appearances,
these illusions have a kind of quasi-reality'.
And if I think that, then I'll cling to them,
and react to them with like or dislike,
emotions of pleasure or displeasure.
And I'll still be trapped in the fabrication of samsara,
the process of fabricating samsara.
So I have now to focus on these illusory appearances,
and when I do, I will see that actually,
the very notion that certain conditions produce other,
produce results,
these causes somewhere will produce these results,
as if the conditions of the cause and the result are real,
itself is still a fabrication.
Because I cannot designate anything as a cause
unless there's result.
But when there's the causes gathered,
there cannot be a result,
or else the cause and result will exist
in the very same space.
But if I say, 'Well, the cause happens,
the result happens when the causes have gone,'
there's no causes to that result.
Everything would be random.
So in fact, I cannot truly find and isolate anything
that is real, substantial, and solid,
even illusory causes and conditions.
And therefore, there's nothing for my mind to cling to.
There's nothing for it take hold of, or to try to possess.
In that way, it's as if there is no resting place
for the mind grasping at solidity.
Everything is simply like the space
or like the sky.
I'm free from all clinging, all positions.
There's nothing to designate, nothing to cling to and say,
'This is it, this is real,
this is the real substance.'
Not externally, nor internally.
And by understanding that, and then bringing to mind,
fusing the calmness of Samatha,
of calm abiding, and the clarity of insight,
my mind joins together with reality,
the reality that the true nature of all phenomena
is beyond extremes: not this, not that,
not truly existence as things, not truly nonexistent.
Because everything is simply the arising of interdependence,
but when I examine those seemingly interdependent phenomena,
I cannot find them and grasp at them.
Reality defies duality.
Reality is beyond all positions,
beyond all extremes.
This is the meaning of the Middle Way,
and with that Middle Way vision,
a Middle Way understanding, its as if
I've achieved the ultimate therapy,
I've removed the final distortion of my vision,
expressed as that Fourth Attachment,
clinging to signs and substantially.
My mind and reality,
now are joined in unity,
that is the transcendental wisdom,
that is the ultimate Bodhicitta,
that is the true view.
And that wisdom, united with compassion,
is what will lead me to buddhahood.
So with this we complete the teaching of the antidote
to the Fourth Attachment,
and with this whole teaching on the Parting
from the Four Attachments has ended.
So I received this several times from my Tsawai Lama,
His Holiness the 41st Sakya Trizin,
also from my Tsawai Lama, Karma Thinley Rinpoche,
and also from my Lama, Phende Rinpoche.
So it has comes from,
at least from a very great lineage,
in that way.