按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
self…existence。 If then we use as a basis for example a human being （let us leave aside animals and so forth for the time being） – then human beings exist； you exist； I exist； there is somebody who creates causes； there is somebody who experiences results because there is the karmic law which we have gone through earlier on。 So in that way there is an ‘I’； there is a self who is creating causes； who is experiencing results； and then there is something which goes from this life to the future life。 So that self exists； also we know this because we see other individuals with our eyes。 If we were to say that self or human being； being mere elaborations on the same meaning； that they don’t exist； then what are we seeing when we see other human beings with our eyes？ So that self exists； exists in a conventional way； exists in a nominal way。
Then when we talk about ‘selflessness’ or ‘I…lessness’； what is this 'I' which is being spoken about？ Here； what we are talking about is a lack of autonomous existence； because human beings exist as designations upon the five aggregates； that is to say； the aggregates of body and then the various kinds of mind。 So on this basis then； an ‘I’ is imputed。 And that ‘I’ then if grasped as anything else； as anything other than an imputation upon these five aggregates； seen as being something other than them； as existing solidly from its own side； that 'I'； that feeling that we have； that feeling that something exists in and of itself is the ‘I’ or the self which is to be negated； thus we have selflessness or ‘I…lessness’。 So it is extremely important to make a distinction between these two different kinds of self or these two different kinds of ‘I’ – one existing nominally； the other one not existing ultimately and the view that that exists being thus the mistaken view； the one which we are trying to negate or remove through our contemplations upon thusness。
So it is extremely important then to understand clearly these two modes of existence； these two ‘I’s； or these two selves； which we experience because； as is mentioned in the Bodhisattva grounds； when we explain the actual mode of phenomena or the selflessness of people or persons； it is very easy to fall to the extreme that nothing exists at all … there is no person creating karma； there is nobody to experience the result of that karma； there is no 'I' used as a conventional term which is going between one existence and another existence。 When this is presented then we have to be extremely careful in making clear this distinction at the beginning because； as the Bodhisattva grounds mentions； there is every danger that the listener； the person who is being instructed； might fall to the extreme that because we are taught selflessness； that self refers to us； ourselves – then there is nobody to create karma； there is nobody to experience the results； there is no past and future lives； and they fall into this extreme wrong view that there is no karma and no continuation from this life to a future life。
So one has to be extremely clear then with regard to this presentation of how the self exists； and what is meant by selflessness or I…lessness。 So one of the distinctions which is extremely important to make is one that is quite simple； but when we talk about seeing things or experiencing things； like we experience our self directly； we experience others through our eye…consciousness； now this valid cognition which we are using is then one which is correct with regard to the object which it entertains； or which it engages。 So if one is perceiving somebody else as being an object of one’s valid cognition； then that must be something which exists because the very differentiating point between existence and non…existence is whether the object can be cognised by valid cognition or not。 So as we see other individuals then； we are seeing them with a correct or valid cognition； therefore there must be some object existing there for us to see。 This is the nominally existent or the existing 'I'； then the ‘I’ which is to be negated is the emptiness of an autonomously existing 'I'； （ ‘autonomous’ here referring to not being part of the five aggregates but existing as something other than that）。 Through that contemplation then； the ignorance which grasps onto that is removed。
The object of negation
So then initially it’s incredibly important to understand what is meant by the object of negation。 When we talk about something lacking natural or true existence； autonomous existence； however we like to use that language； then we are getting down to the same point – something lacking any kind of existence from its own side。 So we have to understand then what is meant by ‘existing from its own side’ or ‘true existence’ and so forth。 So in order to do that； we have to understand this ignorance which grasps onto such phenomena in a mistaken way； and for that to happen； we have to understand the naturally arising or spontaneously produced mind which is grasping at true or self existence。 Through observing that； then we can e to see the way that this ignorance grasps onto its object； we can then e to see the actual nature of the object and the mistaken way which it is being grasped at by this naturally or spontaneously arising mind of ignorance。 So then when we talk about understanding the object of negation； if we look in the scriptures we can take a quotation from Shantideva’s Bodhicaryavatara which mentions … How without understanding true existence； can you talk about the lack of true existence？ So here it’s very clear isn’t it； if we want to understand what is meant by lack of true existence； then we have to understand initially true existence； that which is to be negated。
In a simpler to understand answer； if we talk about a house or a building； if someone were to e to us and say ‘Is Lodro in the house？’； then if we don’t know who Lodro is； we can’t possibly answer that person – we cannot say ‘yes’ or we cannot say ‘no’。 Even though we might say the word ‘Lodro’ a lot； it doesn’t really mean anything because we don’t understand the basis to which this word； or this name； is attached； or given。 So in the