How to Train in Vipashyana
You should not be content with merely a stilled and settled state of shamatha which, being non-discursive, and also lacking mental dullness and possessing the special benefit of (physical) joy and (mental) bliss, as I have explained, remains single-pointedly, for as long as you wish, on a single focal object, whatever it is placed on.
You need (in addition) to meditate (to develop) an exceptionally perceptive state of vipashyana after having developed the discriminating knowing that has non-reversed certainty about the meaning of voidness (emptiness). This is because, when it is not with the (Prasangika) view of the very nature of reality, then since mere absorbed concentration is (something attained) in common with the non-Buddhist Indian traditions as well, then even if you have accustomed yourself to that, it does not free you, in accord with its pathways of mind, from further compulsive rebirth by means of ridding you of the tendencies of disturbing mental factors.
As (Kamalashila) says in his (First) Stages of Meditation:
Having settled the mind on an (object of) focus like that, one needs to subtly discern (what its nature is) with discriminating knowing. From that, the arising of the lamp of a [non-conceptual] deep knowing will come about, from which (one will acquire) a riddance of oneself, forever, of the tendency for the befuddling mental factor (of misknowing, ignorance. One needs to do that) because, otherwise, it’s not possible for there to be a riddance of the disturbing mental factors by means of absorbed concentration alone, as is the case with the Indian non-Buddhists.
As it says in (The King of Absorbed Concentrations) Sutra:
[Skt.] “Even should they accustom themselves to this absorbed concentration, they should not accustom themselves to a distinguishing of an atman-soul; (otherwise, this distinguishing) will flare up once more in the disturbing mental factors, as in the case of Udraka (with) absorbed concentration meditation (alone).”
[Tib.] Even should they accustom themselves to this absorbed concentration, they will not make their distinguishing of an atman-soul perish. Then their disturbing mental states will return and flare up once more, as in the case of Udraka having accustomed himself to absorbed concentration meditation (alone).
Here, when it says [in the Tibetan translation], “Even should they accustom themselves to absorbed concentration,” it is the absorbed concentration (of shamatha) having the attributes of non-discursiveness, clarity and so on, as explained previously. And even if they have actualized that, they will not be able to rid themselves of grasping for an atman-soul. That is (the meaning of) the line, “they will not make their distinguishing of an atman-soul perish.” And by not having rid themselves of grasping for an atman-soul, then the disturbing mental factors will (continue to) arise, (as they have) primordially done so up until now. That is (the meaning of) the line, “then their disturbing mental factors will return and flare up again.”
Well, if you wonder what kind of (meditative state) you need to accustom yourself to, by means of which you can attain liberation, it is like what comes directly after the quote (from The King of Absorbed Concentrations Sutra) cited (by Kamalashila) just above: “They need to make a detailed observation of the nonexistence of an atman-soul of phenomena,” and so on.
(That first line means) if they have made a detailed observation of phenomena as lacking an atman-soul, they will develop the discriminating knowing that understands the meaning of the nonexistence of an atman-soul. As for (the second line), “and having made a detailed observation of it, if they accustom themselves to it” – (its meaning is) having found the (correct) view of the nonexistence of an atman-soul, then if they cultivate that view and accustom themselves to it. As for (the third line), “that is the cause for acquiring a resultant nirvana as the result” – (its meaning is) that is the cause for the acquiring of the result that is nirvana or liberation.
Well, if you wonder whether, even by accustoming yourself to a different (meditative state) that is not this one, you can acquire nirvana like you acquire nirvana by accustoming yourself to that one, then (the fourth line reads), “Any (meditation) that is other than this and not that will not bring pacification.” (Its meaning is) even if they accustom themselves to a pathway mind that is other than this, yet without that [without accustoming themselves to no such thing as an atman-soul], there can be no pacification of sufferings or of disturbing mental factors.
This indicates very clearly that only the discriminating knowing of the nonexistence of an atman-soul is what will cut the root of further compulsive rebirth. Since even in his (Intermediate) Stages of Madhyamaka Meditation, (Kamalashila) cites (this point) in order to cause the Hoshang assertion [of blank-minded meditation as the pathway mind leading to liberation] to be lost, you should find certainty about this. (That’s) because even though the Indian non-Buddhist sages as well have (acquired) the many good qualities of absorbed concentration, the advanced awarenesses and so on, yet since they do not have the view of the nonexistence of an atman-soul, they have been unable to cross beyond uncontrollably recurring samsaric rebirth even to the slightest degree.
Similarly, from the Bodhisattva Basket as well, cited before:
Someone who, having been satisfied with (acquiring) merely the absorbed concentration that does not know the very nature of reality explained in the scriptural teachings, has the pretentious, false arrogance (of believing) that that (mind of absorbed concentration) is a pathway mind of meditation on the profound meaning, will not become liberated from uncontrollably recurring samsaric rebirth. It is with that intended meaning that I have said, “Listening to (correct explanations) from others, you will become liberated from old age and death.”
Taking it upon himself (to indicate) what his intended meaning was, (Buddha), the Indicator (of the Dharma), has clearly explained that “listening to (a correct explanation) from others” (means) listening to (correct) explanations of the nonexistence of an atman-soul from others. Without a doubt, (Buddha’s) saying, “listening to (correct explanations) from others” was for the sake of refuting the grasping to the thought, “I can generate (a correct understanding) from within, without listening to and thinking about what I have heard from without from a hallowed spiritual teacher concerning the meaning of the nonexistence of an atman-soul."
Generally, from among the Bhagavan (Buddha’s) scriptural teachings, some indicate the very nature of reality directly and, even those that do not indicate it directly, but indirectly, incline toward and alight upon it [upon the very nature of reality]. When you have not turned away the darkness of the stupefying (mental factor of anti-knowing, ignorance) while the illumination of knowing the nature of reality has not arisen, or when you have turned it [the darkness] away when it has arisen – [in either case] if, by means of mere single-minded shamatha, your deep knowing (of the very nature of reality) has not become pure, (then actually) you have not turned away even the darkness of the stupefying (mental factor of anti-knowing). Therefore, you must, without a doubt, seek out a discriminating knowing (of the nature of reality), thinking, “I shall seek out the discriminating knowing that is decisive about the meaning of the nonexistence of an atman-soul, the very nature of reality.”
From (Kamalashila’s) Intermediate Stages of Meditation:
You should think, “Having achieved a stilled and settled state of shamatha, I shall meditate (to acquire) an exceptionally perceptive state of vipashyana. All the enlightening words of the Bhagavan (Buddha), the One Who Overcame and Gained All, have declared it very well – they (these words) either directly make the nature of reality manifestly clear, or indirectly, they incline toward (that nature). Clearing away the darkness with the illumination that comes about when I (correctly) know the nature of reality, I shall part myself from all false semblances of the (correct) view. By means of merely a state shamatha, my deep knowing (of the nature of reality) will not become pure; the darkness of my (emotional and cognitive) obscurations will not be removed. By meditating well, with discriminating knowing, on the nature of reality, my deep awareness (of the nature of reality) will become pure and I will apprehend (non-conceptually) the nature of reality. I shall rid myself fully of (both) obscurations only by the discriminating know (of the nature of reality). That being so, having settled into a state of shamatha, I shall seek the nature of reality with discriminating knowing. I shall not hold on to being content with just shamatha.”
If you ask, what the nature of reality is like, it is, on the deepest level, all existent phenomena’s voidness of both the atman-soul of persons and of phenomena.
Although, from among the far-reaching mental factors, the very nature of reality can be apprehended by far-reaching discriminating knowing, yet since it cannot be apprehended by (far-reaching) mental stability and so on, then without confusing mere (far-reaching) mental stability for far-reaching discriminating knowing, you need to develop (far-reaching) discriminating knowing.
From The Sutra Unravelling the Intended Meaning:
O Bhagavan, through which far-reaching mental factor should bodhisattvas take hold of phenomena’s lack of a (self-establishing) essential nature? Avalokiteshvara, they should take hold of it with far-reaching discriminating knowing.
From that as his intended meaning, (Buddha) also declared in The Sutra of Meditating with Faith in Mahayana, as quoted previously:
No matter how they perform Mahayana (practices) with faith in the Mahayana Vehicle of the Bodhisattvas, yet without being settled in a discriminating knowing (of the nature of reality), I cannot say that they are (even) determined to be free (from samsara).
How to Train in Vipashyana
How to Train in Vipashyana is divided into four sections:
- Devoting Yourself to Building Up (the Prerequisites for) Vipashyana
- The Divisions of Different Types of Vipashyana
- The Way to Meditate in a State of Vipashyana
- The Measure of Attaining Vipashyana by Having Meditated on It.
Devoting Yourself to Building Up (the Prerequisites for) Vipashyana
Having entrusted yourself to learned masters who know the essential points of the scriptural texts in a non-reversed manner, you need to listen to the (teachings of) the tradition of the stainless texts (from them).
Generation of the view that apprehends the very nature of reality by means of the discriminating knowing (that comes) from listening to and thinking (about their teachings) is the cause for (developing) an exceptionally perceptive mind of vipashyana. Without building that up, it is not feasible. This is because if you lack the (correct) view that is decisive to the core about the meaning of the manner in which things (actually) exist, it will be impossible to generate a vipashyana’s exceptionally perceptive apprehension that apprehends just how things exist.
You will need to seek (this correct view) by (relying on a textual source that) indicates its definitive meaning and not on one that indicates an interpretable meaning with a view that resembles it. Since (that is the case), then after knowing the difference between those (scriptural texts) that are definitive and those that are interpretable, you need to comprehend the meaning of the scriptural texts of definitive meaning. In addition, you need to rely on commentaries on their intended, non-reversed meanings since, when you do not rely on treatises that elucidate their intended meanings (composed) by one of the great founders of the (Mahayana) tradition as a valid source of information, you are proceeding in a dangerous direction like a blind person without a guide.
As for which commentaries on their intended meanings are to be relied upon, since (the master) called Nagarjuna, famed throughout the three realms (of samsaric existence), was prophesied in many sutras and tantras by the Buddha himself as being the commentator on the profound meaning of the essence of his teachings, parted from all extremes of existence and nonexistence, you should seek the view that apprehends voidness by relying on his treatises.
Devoting Yourself to Building Up (the Prerequisites for) Vipashyana is divided into three sections:
- Identifying the Classical Texts of Definitive and Interpretable Meaning
- How the Ways of Commenting on Nagarjuna’s Intended Meaning Developed (Historically)
- The Way to Gain a Decisive Determination of the Correct View of Voidness.
Identifying the Classical Texts of Definitive and Interpretable Meaning
Those who wish to apprehend the very nature of reality need to rely on the scriptural texts of the Buddha. Under the influence of the aspired (goals) of those needing to be tamed being varied, the scriptural texts as well are varied. Therefore, since that is the case, if you wonder which ones to rely on for finding the profound meaning, you will apprehend the very nature of reality by relying on the scriptural texts of definitive meaning.
Well, if you then wonder which ones are of definitive meaning and which ones are of interpretable meaning, that’s (determined) through the criterion of what they speak about. Those scriptural texts that indicate deepest (truth about phenomena) are of definitive meaning and those that indicate the superficial (truth about phenomena) are of interpretable meaning.
The Teachings of Akshayamati Sutra (states) like that:
[Query:] Suppose you ask which sutras are of definitive meaning and which sutras are of interpretable meaning.
[Reply:] Those sutras that indicate what is established as the superficial (truth about phenomena) are of interpretable meaning. Those sutras that indicate what is established as the deepest truth (about phenomena) are of definitive meaning.
Those sutras that indicate (what can be apprehended conceptually through) phrases and syllables (of words) are of interpretable meaning. Those sutras that indicate what is difficult (to comprehend) as being the profound view and what is difficult to apprehend (non-conceptually) are of definitive meaning.
Query: Well now, suppose you wonder, for teaching superficial (truths), what kind of method the teachings of superficial (truths use) that count as interpretable and, for teaching deepest (truths), what kind of method the teachings of deepest (truths use) that count as definitive.
Reply: This too is indicated very clearly also in this sutra:
Those sutras that teach the nonexistence of an atman-soul, as if there were an atman-soul, and that explain (such an atman-soul) with various words such as a self, a limited being, a living being, a nourished being, an individual, a person, a proto-human, a human being, an agent, a being with feelings, are called, “those of interpretable meaning.”
Those sutras that teach the (four) gateways to liberation – voidness, no sign (of a cause), no wished for (result), no affecting variables (of agent, object and action), no arising (of phenomena), no non-arising, no limited being, no living being, no person and no ruler – are called, “those of definitive meaning.”
Thus, (Buddha) is saying that his (sutras) that indicate no atman-soul, no arising, and so on in a manner that cuts off all mental fabrication are of definitive meaning, and those that teach that there are an atman-soul and an arising are of interpretable meaning. Because of that, you should know that no atman-soul, no arising and so on are deepest (truth), while arising and so on are superficial (truths).
From The King of Absorbed Concentrations Sutra:
Know, as being of definitive meaning, individual instances of sutras that teach voidness as the Blissfully Gone (Buddhas) have explained it. Know, as being of interpretable meaning, all the Dharma texts from which sentient beings, persons and individuals are taught.
(Kamalashila) has spoken (like this) as well. From his Illumination for Madhyamaka:
Because it is like that, you need to comprehend that only those (texts) that speak of deepest (truth) are of definitive meaning and those that are in contrast (to them) are of interpretable meaning. It is stated from A Filigree of the Lights of Deep Knowing That Enter into the Cognitive Objects of All the Buddhas as well, “The deepest (truth about all phenomena) is that which is of definitive meaning.” As for no arising, it is taught as being of definitive meaning from The Teachings of Akshayamati Sutra.
Therefore, (Nagarjuna’s) (Six) Collections of Lines of Reasoning and the commentaries on their intended meanings are to be taken as teachings of definitive meaning on how things exist. This is because they settle conclusively what deepest (truth) is, parted from all masses of conceptual fabrications about arising, ceasing and so on.
Query: Suppose you wonder why those two (kinds of texts) that teach like that are called, “those of definitive meaning” and “those of interpretable meaning.”
Reply: (Some texts) are called, “those whose meaning is definitive” or “those of definitive meaning” [literally, those to which one is led] because they (teach) the ultimate (meaning) that can be settled upon conclusively. This is (1) because their meaning is the meaning of the very nature of reality and (2) because they have valid (logic) to establish (that meaning), as there is nothing further that you could be led to and it is impossible to be led further by any persons other than to that.
(Kamalashila explains it) like that as well. From his Illumination for Madhyamaka:
[Query:] Suppose you ask which (texts) are to be taken as those of definitive meaning.
[Reply:] They are those that contain valid (logic) and that explain having been composed under the power of (the realization) of deepest (truth), and because it’s impossible to be led by anyone to anything else, other than that.
You can know (why texts of) interpretable meaning (are called like that) by means of what is implicit in what (Kamalashila) has said. They are called, “those whose meaning is interpretable” or “those of interpretable meaning” [literally, those that lead on], (because), not being suitable to be taken literally, they must lead on to another meaning after their intended meaning has been explained. Either that (is why) or, even if it is all right for them to be taken literally, yet with just that much (information) not being about the ultimate nature of reality, you must seek the very nature of reality that is still other than this.
Objection: If sutras of definitive meaning are to be taken literally, then when (statements) come from these sutras that (say) there is no arising (of anything) and there is no person, you must take them (as meaning) there is no such thing at all as an arising (of anything) and no such thing as a person. And if it is not like that, then since they would become non-literal, the absurd conclusion would follow that they are of interpretable meaning.
Reply: That is incorrect, because it appears in many sutras of definitive meaning that when Buddha, the one who is speaking like that, refutes arising and so on, he adds the qualification “in deepest (truth).” When such a qualification appears in one text, then you need to add it in the others in which it does not appear. That’s because it (no arising) is an item (spoken of) in common (by all of them). Furthermore, since they (these texts) are about the very nature of the reality of that item (no arising), then where is there (a text that is) not of definitive meaning that teaches like that. (That’s) because, if it were not like that, then since it (the words of a text) would be something that discounted in general the arising (of anything) [since they would be teaching that there is no such thing as the arising of anything], they would have to be something that discounted as well the words having the property [of giving rise to a meaning], and then it would be impossible to even set (the text) as a sutra of definitive meaning [since all its words, being meaningless, could indicate nothing].
So, even if the assessment of the face-value teachings of a few small words in a sutra or treatise cannot be applied to what is said to be the level of its general tradition and are not fit to be taken literally, you should know that that does not make its being a scriptural text of definitive meaning fall apart. And (you should also know that) even if the assessment of the teachings of (some of its words) is that they are fit to be taken literally, that does not render (a scriptural text) as not being of interpretable meaning.
How the Ways of Commenting on Nagarjuna’s Intended Meaning Developed (Historically):
Query: Suppose you wonder how the (historical) stages unfolded of the (composition of) commentaries on the intended meaning of Nagarjuna’s commentaries – non-reversed (in their explanations) – on scriptural texts such as the Prajnaparamita Sutras (The Sutras of Far-reaching Discriminating Knowing), which teach that there is no such thing as a self-established arising and ceasing with respect to all phenomena.
Reply: Because even the great Madhayamaka (authors) – the learned scholars Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Chandrakirti, Shantideva, and so on – have taken Aryadeva to be a valid authority the same as (they have) the master (Nagarjuna), the two of them (Nagarjuna and Aryadeva), spiritual father and spiritual son, are the sources for the other Madhyamika (masters). Because of that, early scholars have coined the conventions of (referring to the two) as “The Madhyamika (Authors of) the Grandmother Texts” and to the other (ones mentioned above) as “The Madhyamika Holders of Their Camp.”
Some previous spiritual teachers have (classified) Madhyamikas into two, designating them with names by the criterion of how they set the conventional (truth about phenomena):
- Those who asserted conventional (truth) as external existence, they (called) “Sutracharya Madhyamikas”
- Those who asserted conventional (truth) as being without external existence, they (called) “Yogachara Madhyamikas.”
However, there were also (those who differentiated) two by the criterion of how they asserted the deepest (truth):
- Those who asserted the grouping of both [conceptually cognized] voidness and appearance as deepest truth, they (called) “Those Who (Assert) Illusion Established by Logic”
- Those who asserted the mere cutting off of conceptual fabrications regarding appearances [as deepest truth], they (called) “The Propounders of Unfixed [Appearances].”
Of those two, the former one (Those Who Establish Illusion with Logic) was asserted as being (the tradition of) the learned scholars Shantarakshita, Kamalashila and so on. Some (other) learned Indian masters as well accepted the conventions Illusion-like and Unfixed (Appearances). Some learned Indian and Tibetan scholars, who claimed themselves to be Madhyamikas, also asserted like that in general. Nevertheless, despite the necessity to reach a decisive conclusion about the tradition of the great Madhyamaka followers of the learned master Nagarjuna, who (among those learned scholars) was able to explain on a more finely drawn level [than Nagarjuna and Aryadeva? None.]
Furthermore, the Eye-opening Translator Loden Sherab’s remark, that “setting a pair (of traditions) by the criterion of their assertions of deepest (truth) gives rise to an astonishing amount of stupefying” is really excellent. This is because, concerning the assertion of these two (divisions of Madhyamaka), what appears [in one of the two] as an assertion of deepest truth is merely the object [voidness] cognized (conceptually) by the inferential cognition that knows through logical reasoning. Both (Shantarakshita’s) Filigree of Madhyamaka and (Kamalashila’s) Illumination for Madhyamaka stated that what is comprehended (conceptually) by knowing through logical reasoning is a facsimile of deepest truth that is (merely) designated as deepest truth. Other great Madhyamikas as well do not accept as deepest truth merely that – the object (voidness) that is cut off from conceptual fabrication (in a conceptual cognition) by logical reasoning. Therefore, [classifying as a division of Madhyamaka one that asserts that as deepest truth] is no good.
Concerning this [the history of how the ways of commenting in Nagarjuna’s view came about], the spiritual master Yeshe De claimed that:
- The Madhyamaka treatises composed by the spiritual masters (Nagarjuna and Aryadeva), the arya spiritual father and spiritual son, did not make clear a method (for determining) whether external objects exist or not.
- [Because of that, it was only] after them that the learned master Bhavaviveka set the tradition that external objects conventionally exist by arguing against the Vijnaptimatra tradition of Consciousness Only.
- [And it was only] after this that the learned master Shantarakshita, relying on the Yogachara classics, founded a different manner of Madhyamaka, one that taught as conventional (truth) the nonexistence of external objects and as deepest (truth) the nonexistence of the self-established existence of the mind. The former was designated as Sutracharya Madhyamaka and the latter as Yogachara Madhyamaka.
That explanation was (his explanation of) how the historical stages came about: (they) manifested (sequentially).
However, Chandrakirti maintained that conventionally there is external existence. Even so, he did not (set conventional truth) according to the same criteria as other (Buddhist tenet systems did), and so it is improper to call him a Sutracharya Madhyamika. Likewise, it is totally illogical to assert as well that he is in accord with the Vaibhashikas [in his assertion of external existence].
The usage of the convention of the pair (of terms), Prasangika and Svatantrika, by the learned scholars of the Later Transmission (of the Dharma) to (Tibet,) the Land of Snow Mountain Ranges, has been in accord with Chandrakirti’s Clarified Words (Commentary on Nagarjuna’s “Root Verses on Madhyamaka, Called, ‘Discriminating Knowing.’”) You should not think that (the Tibetan masters) made it up themselves.
Therefore, it is certain that there are two (Svatantrika traditions according to whether) they assert or do not assert external existence conventionally. And it is certain that there are two (Madhyamaka traditions), Svatantrika and Prasangika, when these names are in fact designated by the criterion of the way of generating on your mental continuum the view that ascertains deepest truth voidness.
Query: Suppose you wonder whom among those learned masters to follow in order to find out the intended meaning of the spiritual father (Nagarjuna) and his spiritual son (Aryadeva).
Reply: Following the appearance of the Outstanding Great Master (Jo-bo Atisha) taking the tradition of Chandrakirti as the main one (to follow), the great previous lamas (who have imparted) guideline instructions also have taken his tradition as the main one (to follow).
The learned master Chandrakirti set Buddhapalita as the foundation of this tradition, after seeing him as fully elucidating Arya (Nagarjuna)’s intended meaning in his commentary on (Nagarjuna’s) Root Verses on Madhyamaka, Called, “Discriminating Knowing.” And after accepting some of the many good explanations of Bhavavivaka as well, while arguing against and defeating the few points that seemed incorrect, he composed his own commentaries on the (two) Aryas’ intended meaning.
After seeing the commentaries of these two learned masters, Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti, as extraordinary explanations of the texts of the Arya spiritual father and his spiritual son, I shall come to a decisive conclusion about the Aryas’ intended meaning by following these (two) learned scholars.