Part ¼ Contents
I.
Dialectic-Madhyamaka do not assert the Basis-of-All Consciousness
A. Reference of the Two Dimensions
of Reality
B. Defining Characteristics of the
Two Dimensions of Reality
C. Legitimate Experience which
Ascertains the Defining Characteristics in the Reference
1. The
Mode of Ascertaining the Defining Characteristics of the Genuine Facts of
Reality
2.
The Mode of Ascertaining the Defining Characteristics of the All-Pervading
Facades of Reality
D. The mode in which the Wisdom
of Equipoise-Abiding of a Seer Beholds the Sheer State of Exactitude
III.
Dialectic-Madhyamaka Asserts External Objects in the Dimension of Narratives
Gyaltsab Je’s Notes on the Eight
Greatly Crucial Points
In the Root Wisdom as Taught by Je Rinpoche
Homage to Je Rinpoche and his
foremost disciples!
In Tibetan: དབུ་མའི་རྩ་བའི་དཀའ་གནས་ཆེན་པོ་བརྒྱད་ཀྱི་བརྗེད་བྱང་། །དཀའ་གནད་བརྒྱད་ཀྱི་ཟིན་བྲིས་རྗེའི་གསུང་བཞིན་བརྗེད་བྱང་དུ་བཀོད་པ། །
I prostrate to my Most Revered and Sacred Masters!
In respect to the Root Wisdom composed by the Wise Masters Arya Nāgārjuna, there are eight well known commentaries, among which the two commentaries composed by the Wise Masters Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti gave errorless explanations of the true meaning of the works by the Wise Master Nāgārjuna. The two Wise Masters made countless subtle points which differentiated them from other commentators; however, [Je Rinpoche] spoke about the Eight Great Tenets which are the most crucial; four are affirmations, and the other four are refutations. In the context of the Basis, they refute the Basis-of-All Consciousness[1] and Intrinsic Characteristics[2] even in the Dimension of Narratives,[3] but affirm the external objects. In the context of the Path, they refute Reflexive Cognizer[4] as well as the Apologetic Reasoning[5] as a means to realize the sheer State of Exactitude,[6] but affirm the [uncommon] presentation of the two obscurations and that the Hearer-Expounder and Self-Beneficial Victors[7] realize that dharmas do not have intrinsic nature.[8] Finally, in the context of the Fruit, they affirm the [unique] mode of Buddha’s Sacred Knowing of the Entirety.[9]
I. Dialectic-Madhyamaka[10] do not assert the Basis-of-All Consciousness
Regarding the point of not asserting the Basis-of-All Consciousness, the disputation was stated and then replies were given.
Someone said:
“If the virtuous and non-virtuous karmas were to maintain until the ripening of their results, they would be perpetual. A person asserts such a tenet falls into the extreme of Perpetualism. On the other hand, if a karma disintegrates at the second moment of its creation, the creation of a karma will be wasted since the disintegration[11] of a karma does not have the status of actual existence[12] and it is impossible for it to give rise to the ripening of the karmic results.”
In responding to that disputation, someone hypothesizes the Basis-of-All Consciousness. That is to say, although the karmas disintegrate, the capacity of karmas [of giving results] are successively planted in such a basis. Others asserts the continuum of the mental consciousness to be this basis. There are also some who affirm the existence of the Obtention[13] of a karma, and someone who affirms other types of existence by saying: “Karmas do not get wasted, it is like the ruling power of owning a debt.”
Response: Although we do not accept the four assertions including the assertion of the Basis-of-All Consciousness, we do not commit to the faulty consequence that a previously created karma will be wasted. That is because there is no contradiction between our refutation of the Basis-of-All Consciousness and the fact that a karma brings about its results through its disintegration.
Some may say: “Your proof is not legitimate, since it is inappropriate to assert the disintegration of a karma as actual existence.”
Response: It we assert intrinsic characteristics, it would not be suitable for us to assert that the disintegration of a karma is actual existence. However, the karma which is yet to disintegrate and its disintegration are equivalent in the sense that they are both either actual existence or not, since we do not assert Intrinsic Characteristics even in the Dimension of Narratives.
Indeed, among those who assert Intrinsic Characteristics, no one would affirm that disintegration of a karma is actual existence. That is because they affirm actual existence as something that is suitable to appear as a content of the mind by its own power – in other words, without relying on or being excluded from other dharmas. On the other hand, they assert that the disintegration of karma does not appear to the mind by its own power in any way – that is to say, its sole appearance is the exclusion from a karma before the disintegration, which appears as a content of mind at the beginning.
For us who do not assert Intrinsic Characteristics, it is extremely easy to prove that the disintegration of a karma is actual existence, since a karma which is yet to disintegrate and its disintegration are equivalent of whether or not being actual existence. That is because, for the sequential evolution and declination[14] of the cause-effect relationship which [supposedly] subsist on the intrinsic standing of the objects themselves, they do not exist even in respect to a karma which is yet to disintegrate. On the other hand, for the sequential evolution and declination of cause-effect relationship whose existence is posited solely by the power of Narratives, they do exist even in respect to the disintegration of a karma.
Some may say: “Your proof is not legitimate. That is because, the disintegration of a karma is solely the exclusion of the karma’s actual existence, and thus it does not have the ability to perform the function of a cause whatsoever.”
Response: If that was true, even a karma would have no cause, since something which has been created does not have the need to perform further functions whatsoever.
Furthermore, we are not asserting that there is something else causing the disintegration which is different from the disintegration itself that has been created and is disintegrating; all that we are asserting is the process of disintegration. A karma does not exist in the temporal phase of its cause, but we do see its sequential evolution and declination arise after its reaction. In the same way, the disintegration of a karma does not exist in the temporal phase of the karma, but it does create the orderly and sequential evolution and declination of a karma that arises after the karma.
Moreover, if not asserting that disintegration of a karma is actual existence, we would contradict the scripture which states: “Aging and death [are induced] by the condition of birth.” That is because, the Buddha said birth is the condition of death. In addition, we would not be able to confirm the Buddha’s words that the disintegration of a karma is subsumed in the Heap of Compositional Existence.
Thus, regarding karma, since its birth does not subsist on intrinsic nature, its disintegration does not exist by intrinsic nature either. Accordingly, a karma which is yet to disintegrate and its disintegration, whose existences are posited solely in a nominal sense,[15] are equivalent in the sense that they both are actual existence. Therefore, we can affirm that the disintegration of a karma does give rise to its results and thus a karma which is created is never wasted, even though we do not assert the Basis-of-All Consciousness and so forth. With this in mind, the Wise Master Nāgārjuna said [in the Root Wisdom]:
“Thus, a karma does not have birth,
Subsequently, it does not have intrinsic nature.
Since a karma is not something that is produced.
It is never wasted.”
Some may say: “Then, the non-existence of a vase [in a particular temporal-spatial location] is also actual existence.”
Response: Your example is not equivalent to the case of a karma and its disintegration. That is because, the so-called “the non-existence of a vase [in a particular location]” is posited solely by excluding a Legitimate Experience which would otherwise observe a vase, and there is no successive existence of these two, [i.e., a Legitimate Experience beholding a vase at first and then its exclusion.]
At last, if the disintegration of a karma does give rise to its results, it is meaningless to make an affirmation of the Basis-of-All Consciousness and so forth. That is commonly agreeable among others and our own school.
II. Dialectic-Madhyamaka
Does Not Assert the Intrinsic Characteristics Even in the Dimension of
Narratives
Why do the exponents of Dialectic Madhyamaka not assert the Intrinsic
Characteristics even in the Dimension of Narratives? In general, those who
assert that Intrinsic Characteristics subsist in the Dimension of Genuine Facts[16] are
the Speakers of Realness,[17] and
those who assert that Intrinsic Characteristics does not subsist in the
Dimension of Genuine Facts but nevertheless subsists in the Dimension of
Narratives are the exponents of Apologetic Madhyamaka.[18] In
contrast, the two Wise Masters [Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti] affirm that Intrinsic
Characteristics does not subsist even in the Dimension of Narratives. For Intrinsic
Characteristics, the affirmation of its subsistence in the Dimension of
Narratives – even if its subsistence in the dimension of Genuine Facts is refuted
– leads to the consequence that the Supreme Wisdom of a Seer[19] would
become something that destroys actual existence. In addition, the sheer State
of Absence[20]
would not be Self-Absence,[21] that
is, a type of absence that a thing is absent of something else.
In other words, if actual existence subsisted on its intrinsic essence,[22] it would subsist in the dimension of its Exactitude.[23] Subsequently, it would be suitable to be observed by the Supreme Wisdom of Equipoise-Abiding[24] of a Seer. Accordingly, when Seers intimately realize the sheer State of Absence, they would realize that no actual existence exists. That is because, if [the premise of subsistence in a form of Exactitude were held] and actual existence exists, the actual existence would be suitable to be observed by the wisdom of Equipoise-Abiding, which actually does not observe such existence. Therefore, it would be the case that actual existence exits at first, and then is realized to be not existing anymore when a Seer actualizes the sheer State of Absence. In other words, this very wisdom would be something that destroys actual existence, in the same way as a hammer demolishes a vase.
The Mind-Only School affirms that the Non-Dualistic Awareness[25] is truthful. By negating external existence in respect to the awareness, they assert the State of Absence that is possessed by such an awareness. Accordingly, actual existence would be something that is Other-Absent[26] but not Self-Absent. That is because they do not refute that actual existence subsists on intrinsic essence, even though they do refute their intrinsic nature that [supposedly] subsists in the dimension of Genuine Facts.
Both of those explanations are mistaken in respect to the Sutra which states: “The sheer State of Absence does not cause any dharma to be absent; those very dharmas are in the sheer State of Absence.” Therefore, the dharmas of Dependent Arising perform functions solely in the nominal and symbolic sense,[27] and intrinsic nature must be refuted in respect to them. That is to say, for anything that perform functions, intrinsic nature must be refuted in respect to it, even intrinsic nature in the Dimension of Narratives.
Some may say: “Then, it would not be appropriate to make a distinction between legitimate all-pervading facades and mistaken all-pervading facades.”[28]
Response: we do assert it is not appropriate to assert the distinction between legitimate and mistaken all-pervading facades by the criterion whether they have capacity to perform functions in accordance with their mode of presence.[29] That is because, they, ipso facto, do not subsist in a form that is in accordance with how they are presented in a worldly awareness. However, solely in the relative context of the awareness of the World of Narratives,[30] we do affirm the distinction between legitimate and mistaken all-pervading facades. For example, regarding the content of awareness, a blue object is a token of the references of “legitimate all-pervading facades,” since without realizing its sheer State of Exactitude, one cannot realize that it does not subsist in a form that is accordance with its presence. In contrast, a mirror reflection is a token of the references of “mistaken all-pervading facades,” since without rely on the realization of its sheer State of Exactitude, one can realize that it does not subsist in a form which is in accordance with its presence. We also affirm the distinction between legitimate and mistaken all-pervading facades regarding the awareness beholding of contents in the same manner. However, the exponents of Apologetic Madhyamaka do not make a distinction between legitimate and mistaken all-pervading facades regarding the awareness beholding of contents. That is because, according to their assertion, it is impossible for the Intimate Experience[31] of Reflexive Cognizer which presents itself as its own Presented Content to be misled regarding its Presented Content.[32] Therefore, for them, it is impossible for a distinction to exist between things that have the capacity to perform functions in accordance with their mode of presence and things that have no such capacity.
Some may say: “If intrinsic nature did not exist even in the Dimension of Narratives, it would be impossible for the all-pervading facades of reality to exist. Subsequently, the reality would not be posited in two dimensions.”
Response: We do not have the fallacy that it is impossible for reality to exist in the Dimension of Narratives, since the reality in the perspective of mental states of the World of Narratives[33] is the Narrative Reality.[34]
Four topics were presented in this point: A. Reference[35] of the Two Dimensions of Reality;[36] B. Defining Characteristics[37] of the Two Dimensions of Reality; C. The Legitimate Experience[38] which Ascertains the Defining Characteristics in the Reference; D. The Mode in which the Wisdom of Equipoise-Abiding of a Seer Seeing the Sheer State of Exactitude.
A.
Reference of the Two Dimensions of
Reality
Master Candrakīrti says in his Supplement to the Middle Way:
“By seeing the legitimate and deceptive [dimensions] of all
actual existences,
He encounters actual existences and beholds the two dimensions of their
essences.”
Thus, all external and inner actual existence resides in two dimensions: (a) that which is encountered by awareness of the World of Narratives and can be realized even by the amateurs, and (b) that which is encountered by Legitimate Experience examining the Genuine Facts, and due to seeing such an object, [a practitioner will be able to] meditate on the Seers’ Path and be endowed with the result. In respect to the actual existences, blue objects and so forth which are well known to the amateurs as truthful are the All-Pervading Facades of Reality,[39] while the facts that blue objects and so forth do not have intrinsic nature are the Genuine Facts of Reality.[40]
Some may say: “From the perspective of amateurs, blue objects and so forth are All-Pervading Facades of Reality.”
Response: Such a statement is mistaken, since in order to realize that blue objects and so forth are All-Pervading Facades of Reality, one must first eradicate the superimposition, that is, Beholding of Truthfulness.[41]
B.
Defining Characteristics of the Two
Dimensions of Reality
There are some who say:
“Regarding the Defining Characteristics of the All-Pervading Facades of Reality, the All-Pervading Facades of Reality are the myriad presence of Dependent Arising. On the other hand, regarding the Defining Characteristics of the Genuine Facts of Reality, the Genuine Facts of Reality are that which are freed from the fabrications of intrinsic nature and transcends the realm of Measured Contents,[42] which are knowable and expressible in an affirmative sense.”[43]
Response: According [to their explanation regarding the All-Pervading Facades of Reality,] even those amateurs who do not have intellectual understanding of the View would realize intimately the fact of the All-Pervading Facades of Reality. And due to the force of such an intimate Legitimate Experience, they would eradicate their superimposition, that is, Beholding of Truthfulness. That leads to the consequence that those Subjects of the Flux [of Mental Afflictions][44] would already be Seers. In addition, any negative existence which subsists solely in a sense of exclusion would be the Genuine Facts of Reality, since (a) it is freed from the fabrications of intrinsic nature and (b) it transcends the realm of Measured Contents which are knowable and expressible in the affirmative sense. Reason (b) is grounded, since such negative existence does not subsist in an affirmative sense. Reason (a) is also grounded, since if it were not freed from the fabrication of intrinsic nature, it would subsist in a truthful form.[45]
In conclusion, the facts which are directly encountered by Legitimate Experience of the World of Narratives are the All-Pervading Facades of Reality, while the facts which are directly encountered by the Reasoning Awareness[46] examining finality are the Genuine Facts of Reality.
C.
Legitimate
Experience which Ascertains the Defining Characteristics in the Reference
There are three topics in this section: (1) The mode of ascertaining the Defining Characteristics in the Genuine Facts of Reality, (2) The mode of ascertaining the Defining Characteristics in the All-Pervading Facades of Reality, and (3) The mode of making a distinction between the All-Pervading Facades of Reality and the All-Pervading Facades Proper.[47]
1.
The Mode of Ascertaining the Defining
Characteristics of the Genuine Facts of Reality
When a Reasoning Awareness directly realizes that there is no sprouts which [supposedly] exists due to having intrinsic nature, the Distinguishableness[48] of [the content of] such a realization is also realized implicitly by the Reasoning Awareness itself. That is because, the Reasoning Awareness eradicates the superimposition whose content it does not encounter directly, by shifting attention to the fact that a sprout does not have intrinsic nature. Therefore, this Legitimate Experience, which ascertains the reference of a Genuine Fact of Reality, itself also implicitly realizes the Defining Characteristics in that reference.
2.
The Mode of Ascertaining the Defining Characteristics of the All-Pervading
Facades of Reality
A blue object is proved to exist in the sense that it is solely encountered by a misled awareness of the World of Narratives. Accordingly, the Legitimate Experience which engages a blue object must be stated as an instance of Misled Awareness.[49] Such a Misled Awareness relies on the realization of the Reasoning Awareness, which realizes that a blue object does not exist in a form which is in accordance with its presence in the awareness beholding it, that is, it does not subsist on intrinsic characteristics.[50] Therefore, in respect to a blue object, the Misled Awareness ascertains the defining characteristics of an All-Pervading Facade of Reality by relying on two instances of awareness: (a) A reasoning Awareness examining the finality of the blue object and (b) An awareness of the World of Narratives which engages the blue object.
3.
The Mode of Making a Distinction between the All-Pervading Facades of Reality
and the All-Pervading Facades Proper
There are some who say: “From the perspective of amateurs, blue objects and so forth are the All-Pervading Facades of Reality, while from the perspective of the wisdom at the Post-Attainment Session[51] of Seers of the three highest Grounds, they are All-Pervading Facades Proper but not All-Pervading Facades of Reality.”
Response: Accordingly, those Seers would not be able to errorlessly explain the distinction between the two dimensions of reality. That is because, [under the opponent’s premise,] the All-Pervading Facades of Reality do not exist from the perspective of the mind of those Seers.
Thus, this phrase “All-Pervading Facades Proper” is posited from the perspective of the wisdom at the post-attainment session of the Foe-Destroyers[52] of Hearer-Expounder and Self-beneficial Victor, as well as the Heroes with the Heart of Bodhi[53] who achieved the Mighty States. Regarding its meaning, it is to indicate that a type of Mind Beholding All-Pervading Facades,[54] which presupposes visible forms, sounds, and so forth to be truthful, does not exist in the continuum of those Seers. It is not to indicate that visible forms, sounds and so forth do not subsist as the All-Pervading Facades of Reality from the perspective of their Mind Beholding All-Pervading Facades [in general.]
For the Seers-in-Training of Hearer-Expounders and Self-beneficial Victors as well as the Seers [of the Heroes with the Heart of Bodhi] up to the seventh Ground, this type of Mind Beholding All-Pervading Facades, which presupposes the truthfulness of the All-Pervading Facades, does exist in their continuum. That is because they still have the manifested Afflictive Obscurations.[55] Thus, visible forms, sounds, and so forth in the perspective of their wisdom at the Post-attainment Session are not referred to by the term “All-Pervading Facades Proper.”
Therefore, [the mistake mentioned in the first paragraph of this section] is made because they confused the two following statements as one without proper distinction. [1. A correct statement:] In the perspective of a type of Mind Beholding All-Pervading Facades which belongs to a person’s continuum, visible forms, sounds, and so forth do not subsist in a truthful form.[56] [2. An incorrect statement:] In the perspective of Mind Beholding All-Pervading Facades, visible forms, sounds, and so forth do not subsist as the All-Pervading Facades of Reality.
D. The mode in which the Wisdom of Equipoise-Abiding of a Seer Beholds the
Sheer State of Exactitude
Consider the meaning of this statement from a sutra: “Not
seeing anything whatsoever is the sacred seeing.” For example, the phrase
“seeing the empty sky” means not beholding any obscuring visible forms which,
if existing, would be suitable to be seen. Similarly, the wisdom at the Equipoise-Abiding
Session of a Seer realizes the non-existence of truthfulness.[57] That
means, it does not behold something [supposedly] existing truthfully,[58]
which if existing would be suitable to be observed. Accordingly, in such a
wisdom, all the Fabrications of Presence[59] must
be excluded without exception, since for anyone whose Obscurations has not been
eliminated completely, if there is the presence of the All-Pervading Facades,
the All-Pervading Facades are presented as truthful.[60] In
respect to any token of All-pervading facades, it does not exist in the
perspective of the awareness seeing its State of Exactitude. That is because if
it did so exist, it would have to subsist in the dimension of its sheer State
of Exactitude; but in actuality, it does not subsist in the dimension of its sheer
State of Exactitude.
III. Dialectic-Madhyamaka Asserts
External Objects in the Dimension of Narratives
The Exponents of the Yogācāra School say: “There are no external objects but only mind, and the mind subsists in the dimension of the sheer State of Exactitude.” Replying to the question “What would be a simile?” they say: “It is like the occasion of a dream.”
Response: Such a thesis is unacceptable. For in a dream, there is no external object that is truthful. Accordingly, the existence of the mind which is [supposedly] truthful is disproved.
Some [exponents of Yogācāra] may argue: “The existence of the experiencing mind of a dream is inferred from the sign of one’s awareness of recollection at the time of waken.”
Response: Subsequently, the external objects one experiences in a dream would also exist, since one has recollection of them when awake.
[The exponents of Yogācāra] may say: “The awareness in a dream is brought about, depending on the condition of sleeping, by the ripening of the propensity[61] of [giving rise to] an awareness with the presence of external objects. It is not due to the power of external objects.”
To them, we raise the question: “Then, for someone who is blind, why can’t he give rise to an awareness with clear presence of blue objects and so forth even he is awake?”
They may give the answer: “That is because he does not have the condition of eye faculty.”
We can continue the argument, saying: “Subsequently, for someone who is blind, he would not give rise to an awareness with clear presence of blue objects and so forth even in da ream, just like it would not give rise to such an awareness when awake, since both occasions are equivalent in the sense that there is no eye faculty.” Such reasoning is ground for assertion.
Therefore, when one is awake, the eye faculty, visible forms, and awareness of those visible forms – which are all deceptive – arise, just like when someone is experiencing a dream; all those three factors exist. In contrast, in the perspective of the wisdom which actualizes the sheer State of Exactitude, none of those three exists, just like when one is awake, none of the three factors [being experienced] in a dream exist.
Some may say: “If the eye faculty, visible forms and so forth which one experiences in a dream exist, one should be able to see them when awake.”
Response: Exactly like the factors one experiences in a dream
do not exist when awake, [all-pervading facades] do not exist in the
perspective of the wisdom which actualizes the sheer State of Exactitude.
Although they do not exist [from that perspective, the all-pervading facades
of] the entirety of awareness and their objects do subsist [deceptively] when
one is awake, just like the entirety of awareness and their objects [one
experiences in a dream] do subsist when dreaming. Therefore, from the
perspective of Legitimate Experience of the World of Narratives,[62] the
mind and external objects are equivalent in the sense that they both exist. From
the perspective of the mind which realizes the sheer State of Exactitude, the
mind and external objects are also equivalent in the sense that neither of them
exist. Thus, it is not reasonable to assert the existence of mind, but deny the
existence of external objects.
[1] Basis-of-All Consciousness: ཀུན་གཞི་
[2] Intrinsic Characteristics: རང་མཚན་
[3] In the Dimension of Narratives: ཐ་སྙད་དུ་
[4] Reflexive Cognizer: རང་རིག་
[5] Apologetic Reasoning: རང་རྒྱུད་
[6] The sheer State of Exactitude: དེ་ཁོ་ན་ཉིད་
[7] The Hearer-Expounder and Self-Beneficial Victors: ཉན་རང་
[8] Intrinsic nature: རང་བཞིན་
[9] Sacred Knowing of the Entirety ཇི་སྙེད་པ་མཁྱེན་པ
[10] Dialectic-Madhyamaka: དབུ་མ་ཐལ་རྒྱུད་པ་
[11] Disintegration: ཞིག་པ་
[12] Actual Existence: དངོས་པོ་
[13] Obtention: ཐོབ་པ་
[14] Sequential evolution and declination: རྗེས་སུ་འགྲོ་ལྡོག་
[15] Be posited solely in a nominal sense: མིང་ཙམ་གྱིས་བཞག་པ
[16] In the Dimension of Genuine Facts: དོན་དམ་དུ་
[17] Speakers of Realness: དངོས་སྨྲ་བ་
[18] Apologetic Madhyamaka: དབུ་མ་རང་རྒྱུད་པ་
[19] Seer: འཕགས་པ་
[20] Sheer State of Absence: སྟོང་ཉིད་
[21] Self-Absence: རང་སྟོང་
[22] Subsist on intrinsic essence: རང་གི་ངོ་བོས་གྲུབ་པ་
[23] Subsist in the dimension of Exactitude: དེ་ཁོ་ན་ཉིད་དུ་གྲུབ་པ་
[24] Supreme Wisdom of Equipoise-Abiding: མཉམ་གཞག་ཡེ་ཤེས
[25] Non-Dualistic Awareness: གཉིས་མེད་ཀྱི་ཤེས་པ་
[26] Other-Absent: གཞན་སྟོང་
[27] solely in the nominal and symbolic sense: མིང་ཙམ་བརྡ་ཙམ་གྱི་སྒོ་ནས་
[28] legitimate all-pervading facades: ཡང་དག་པའི་ཀུན་རྫོབ་; mistaken all-pervading facades: ལོག་པའི་ཀུན་རྫོབ་
[29] mode of presence: སྣང་ཚུལ་
[30] Awareness of the World of Narratives: ཐ་སྙད་པའི་ཤེས་པ་
[31] Intimate Experience: མངོན་སུམ་
[32] Presented Content: སྣང་ཡུལ་
[33] Mental States of the World of Narratives: ཐ་སྙད་ཀྱི་བསམ་པ་
[34] Narrative Reality: ཐ་སྙད་ཀྱི་བདེན་པ་
[35] Reference: མཚན་གཞི་
[36] Two Dimensions of Reality: བདེན་པ་གཉིས་
[37] Defining Characteristics: མཚན་ཉིད་
[38] Legitimate Experience: ཚད་མ་
[39] All-Pervading Facades of Reality: ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཀྱི་བདེན་པ་
[40] Genuine Facts of Reality: དོན་དམ་པའི་བདེན་པ་
[41] Beholding of Truthfulness: བདེན་འཛིན་
[42] Measured Content: གཞལ་བྱ་
[43] In an affirmative sense: in an affirmative sense: ཡོངས་གཅོད་དུ་
[44] Subject of the Flux [of Mental Afflictions], i.e.,
person: གང་ཟག་
[45] Subsist in a truthful form: བདེན་པར་གྲུབ་པ་
[46] Reasoning Awareness: རིགས་ཤེས་
[47] All-Pervading Facades Proper: ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཙམ་
[48] Distinguishableness: ལྡོག་པ་
[49] Misled Awareness: འཁྲུལ་ཤེས་
[50] Subsist on intrinsic characteristics: རང་མཚན་གྲུབ་པ
[51] Post-Attainment Session: རྗེས་ཐོབ་
[52] Foe-Destroyers: དགྲ་བཅོམ་པ་ད
[53] Heroes with the Heart of Bodhi: བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་
[54] Mind Beholding All-Pervading Facades: བློ་ཀུན་རྫོབ་པ་
[55] Afflictive Obscurations: ཉོན་སྒྲིབ་
[56] Subsist in a truthful form: བདེན་པར་མ་གྲུབ་པ་
[57] Non-existence of truthfulness: བདེན་མེད་
[58] Exist truthfully: བདེན་པར་ཡོད་པ་
[59] Fabrications of Presence: སྣང་བའི་སྤྲོས་པ་
[60] Be presented as truthful: བདེན་པར་སྣང་པ་
[61] Propensity: བག་ཆགས་
[62] Legitimate Experience of the World of Narratives: ཐ་སྙད་པའི་ཚད་མ
No comments:
Post a Comment