Lecture No. 0268
Global Lamrim II
Lecture No. 0268
Lamrim Volume 1: P34LL9 – P36L5
Tape No NA
Date: 2022-07-20
Topic: Rely on great masters’ commentaries, only then can we understand the lineage teachings (Four Interwoven Annotations)
Let’s continue our study of the Introduction to the Four Interwoven Annotations, the Chinese text, page 94. It says, “With regard to the author who composed the text, there are many questions.” Why? Because it states here that the author who wrote the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment is the author who composed the Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment. Yet, as we all know, the author of the Lamp for the Path of Enlightenment is Master Atisha, and the author of the Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment is Lama Tsong-kha-pa. Why did Lama Tsong-kha-pa say [v.1 p. 36] that Master Atisha was the author [of the Great Treatise]? There are many questions concerning who the author was, if Master Atisha was the author [of the Great Treatise] then Lama Tsong-kha-pa shouldn’t have to devote the efforts to composing Lamrim, right? [Why?] Since Master Atisha had already composed one; that is, he had already written about the path to enlightenment. There are many similar doubts in this regard. [00′37″]
With respect to this question, Nga-wang Rab-ten [we translated as Master Yu before] said in the annotation, “It means both masters, Master Atisha and Lama Tsong-kha-pa, are of the same mental continuum.” That is, some said Lama Tsong-kha-pa and Master Atisha were of the same mental continuum – two different manifestations out of the same mental continuum. So, this statement may suggest that Lama Tsong-kha-pa wanted to say that he was the manifestation of Master Atisha. However, Nga-wang Rab-ten considered this inference unsound; it was not like that. Rather, “From the perspective of enlightenment, the mental continuum of both masters are the same, but the text indicates …” Although Nga-wang Rab-ten did not specify they were not of the same mental continuum, the meaning of this passage is, “the root text or the root ode of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment is the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, composed by Jowo Je.” The author of the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment was Master Atisha; “Therefore, the author, composing the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, should be the one who composed the stages of the path.” Over here the author pioneered only the idea of the stages of the path to enlightenment, not the one who literally wrote or composed the text of Lamrim. Because Lamrim is to elaborate the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, Master Atisha should thus be the author of Lamrim. This is what Lama Tsong-kha-pa meant. [01′39″]
How do we reach the conclusion mentioned above? Nga-wang Rab-ten mentioned in the annotation, “The greatness of the teaching, as set forth later in the text....” Namely, what follows in Lamrim is the exposition on the greatness of the teaching. The exposition of this greatness of the teaching is to illustrate the greatness of the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. This is how we draw this conclusion. [01′56″]
So, if we switch over to an inquiry mode and contemplate this question again, would we think of it this way: Buddha Bhagavan expounded the extensive, medium, and abbreviated versions of “Mother of Conquerors” [v.1 p.376 #2] – that is the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. Since Buddha already expounded the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, it is equivalent to suggesting that Buddha already gave his teachings illustrated in the Ornament for Clear Knowledge. [Why?] Because what is covered in the Ornament for Clear Knowledge can also be found in the three versions of the extensive, medium, and abbreviated “Mother of Conquerors”. Here arises another question: “In this case, isn’t it quite redundant to compose the Ornament for Clear Knowledge? Then, it follows that since [Maitreya] composed the Ornament for Clear Knowledge, it was pointless for Master Atisha to compose the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. [Why?] For the entire teaching of the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment is already covered in the Ornament for Clear Knowledge. If Master Atisha already composed the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, and the same contents can be found in Lamrim as well, then it is meaningless to compose Lamrim.” Is this right? I am not sure if you all have such thought in mind? If this is also what you think, then it is not plausible. In fact, each commentary carries its sublime significance uniquely. If we have thought so , then other than the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, all the other scriptures and commentaries shouldn’t be composed. [Why?] For Buddha has already covered them all. With Buddha's teachings, there is no need for past masters to compose any commentaries, as these composed commentaries are to explain the meaning of what Buddha had taught. [03′01″]
The essence of all three versions of extensive, medium, and abbreviated “Mother of Conquerors” is encapsulated in the Ornament for the Clear Knowledge, and that manifests the meaning of composing the Ornament for the Clear Knowledge. If practitioners can comprehend the Ornament for the Clear Knowledge, they would be able to grasp the intended meanings in the three versions of extensive, medium, and abbreviated “Mother of Conquerors” – the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. Take heed! Even though all the teachings from the Buddha were incorporated in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, are we able to notice the implicit stages of the path illustrated in the Ornament for the Clear Knowledge? Without the Ornament for the Clear Knowledge, maybe we wouldn’t be able to understand. Now we have the Ornament for the Clear Knowledge, if without the composition of the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, we wouldn’t be able to realize the framework of the three scopes based on individual capacities – the small, medium and great capacities, since the three scopes are not clearly specified in the Ornament for the Clear Knowledge. Is this correct? That is, the Ornament for Clear Knowledge does not directly illustrate explicitly the three scopes, we can only find them in the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. [03′48″]
Thus, Master Jowo Je Atisha was the master who initially established the concept of the paths of the three types of persons, for this idea didn’t exist in India before. When Master Atisha finished writing the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, and the commentary was sent back to India, the great Panditas in India said, “Wow! It turns out to be quite a good thing for Jowo Je to go to Tibet; otherwise, he would not have composed such a great commentary.” The fact that Tibetans invited Master Atisha from India to Tibet must have wrung the hearts of the Indian Panditas for a long while and couldn’t let go. Not until Master Atisha wrote the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment and sent it back to India did the Indian Panditas made the above statement. For in India, many great Panditas were able to access the framework [of the three types of persons], without relying on this commentary. Later on there were earnest beseeches from India for the annotation on the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. To orderly illustrate the characteristics of the three types of persons, this is the purpose of composing the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. [04’42”]
Have you read the text of the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment? The text is very succinct, perfectly and completely integrates the paths of Sutrayana and Tantrayana. If a commentary is written in such a succinct way, other than the beings with sharp faculties, those pudgala with dull faculties wouldn’t realize its meaning. [Why?] Because it is so succinct that it is hard for them to comprehend the meaning, therein lies the need to compose the annotation on the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. So, it says in the Lamrim, “hence, the very author of the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment is also the author of this [work]” [v.1 p. 36], meaning the connotation of the Lamrim was composed by the glorious Master Atisha; it doesn’t literally mean that Master Atisha actually wrote the text. Are you still with me? [05’21”]
By such layers of inferring, we realize that even though we have read the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, we probably won’t be able to grasp the three principal aspects of the path, right? Even if we have studied the Ornament for Clear Knowledge, we won’t be able to identify them, either. Thus, by reciting the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, we might not perceive directly or master the stages of the path implicitly illustrated within. [05’41”]
Therefore, I am really grateful to all these great masters and Bodhisattvas for composing such incisive commentaries so that the later generations like us, through the study of Lamrim, be able to understand the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, the Ornament for Clear Knowledge, and furthermore even the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. We are greatly indebted to these eminent masters! [06’00”]
Reflecting on this, do you have the urge to prostrate to these great masters who composed the commentaries? Without Lamrim, it would be impossible for us to comprehend the essence of the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment composed by Master Atisha, nor to understand the Ornament for Clear Knowledge or the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras. Hence, we are very much indebted to Master for his word-for-word explanation of the Lamrim for us. Also, many thanks go to the Venerables in our Translation Academy for their efforts in translating the Four Interwoven Annotations [from Tibetan into Chinese], and the Rinpoche for expounding the Four Interwoven Annotations. Were it not for all these great virtuous scholars and all the gurus passing down the teachings, it would be impossible for us to comprehend such sublime, pure, authentic, and complete lineage teachings! [06’39”]
【全球广论 II 讲次: 0268】
讲次 | 0268 (2020-10-22 ~ 2020-10-25)
标题 | 依祖师论著，方能了解传承教法（四家注）
《广论》段落 | P2-L9 ~ P2-L10 由是菩提道次引导分四……别讳共称胜阿底峡
入门段落 | 第1册 P94-L8 ~ P96-L9 关于造者方面......并不是说文字的造者是阿底峡尊者。
(更新日期: 2023年12月19日)
00:00
还是看《四家合注入门》的 94 页。“关于造者方面有许多的问题。”因为这里边说：《菩提道炬论》的作者，就是《菩提道次第广论》的作者。很显然《菩提道炬论》的作者是阿底峡尊者，《广论》的作者是宗喀巴大师，为什么说是他呢？所以关于造者有很多问题。如果阿底峡尊者是造者的话，那么是否宗喀巴大师就不需著作《广论》了？因为造者阿底峡已经著作的缘故——他已经写过了。这样的疑问很多。00:37
怎么知道呢？语王尊者的说法中提到：“下文所说法殊胜”，接下来会讲述法的殊胜，在讲到法的殊胜的时候，就是在说《菩提道炬论》的殊胜，从这里就可以推知这个结论。01:56
那么如果换成是提问的方式，再来思考这个问题的话，会不会这样想：佛薄伽梵宣说了广、中、略三种《佛母》——就是《般若》，既然已经讲了《般若经》了，就等于讲了《现观庄严论》。因为此论的内容在广、中、略三种《佛母》里面都有，所以可能还会产生疑惑：“这样的话，著作《现观庄严论》不就没有意义了吗？那么，既然已经作了《现观庄严论》，著作《菩提道炬论》不就没有意义了吗？因为它一切的教授都在《现观庄严论》中有了。而尊者已经著作了《菩提道炬论》，其中的内涵和《广论》也是一样的，那么著作《广论》也就没有意义了。”对不对？不知道大家会不会现起这样的想法？有的话，事实并非如此，每一部论都有它各自殊胜的意义。这样想了的话，除了《般若经》，其他的教典就都不应该写了，因为佛陀都讲完了。佛法佛陀都讲完了，祖师也不用再造论了，因为再造论也是解释其中的意思。03:01
摄集广、中、略三种《佛母》一切扼要于一处的，就是《现观庄严论》，这就是著作《现观庄严论》的意义所在；明了《现观庄严论》的话，就能够通达广、中、略三种《般若》所说的一切内涵。注意！佛陀虽然讲了《般若经》，但是我们能不能看到其中有隐义的现观道次第？没有《现观庄严论》，可能我们都是读不懂的。有了《现观庄严论》，如果不著作《菩提道炬论》的话，在《现观庄严论》中，并没有按照各自的次第安立出下、中、上士三种士夫这样的一个框架。对不对？在《现观庄严论》里没有直接这样安立，《道炬论》里才有。03:48
开创三士夫道轨的应该就是觉窝阿底峡尊者，以前在印度应该是没有的。后来《道炬论》造完之后，送回了印度，印度的这些大班智达们说：“哎呀！觉窝杰去西藏是件很好的事，如果不去西藏的话，就不会作出这样的论著。”藏人把阿底峡尊者从印度请到西藏，他们一定是心痛了很久，这事一直在心里都想不开。然后直到阿底峡尊者写了《菩提道炬论》送回去之后，得出这样的结论。因为在印度不需要造这部著述，很多的大智者就能够通达。后来也有来自印度的祈请，希望能有此论的自释。依次宣说安立三士夫的行相，这就是著作《道炬论》的目的。04:42
而《道炬论》的文字大家看过吧？极为地精要，圆满完整地含摄显密之道。这样的话，除了上等根机的补特伽罗以外，下等根机的补特伽罗无法证得其中的义理。就是因为太精要了，所以看不懂，因此也非常需要著作《道炬论》的解释。所以“故彼造者，亦即此之造者”，就是指《广论》的内涵的造者是具德阿底峡尊者，并不是说文字的造者是阿底峡尊者。有在听吗？05:21
这样层层的推理会发现：其实我们看《般若经》应该也看不出三主要道，对不对？看《现观庄严论》也看不出来。这里边的道次第的安立，可能并不能从《般若经》直接地读懂或者学会。05:41
所以就很感恩这些祖师、菩萨能够造这样精辟的论典，让我们这样的后学透过学习《广论》来了解《道炬论》、《现观庄严论》，进而了解《般若经》，这是让我们非常感恩戴德的一件事情！06:00
想到此处，会不会想顶礼这些造论的祖师们？因为没有《广论》，我们也没法知道阿底峡尊者《道炬论》的内涵，也没法了解《现观庄严论》、《般若经》。所以也感恩师父能够这样逐字地为我们解释，还有把《四家合注》翻译过来的译经院法师，给我们讲《四家合注》的仁波切。没有这一些大善知识，还有所有传法的上师们，我们是没法了解这么精彩、清净圆满的传承教法的！06:39