Lecture No. 0342
Great Ocean of Lamrim
Lecture No. 0342
Lamrim Volume 1: P46-L10 ~ L19
Date: 25 Mar 2022
Topic: Realize/Understand the meticulous attitude [exemplified by] great lineage masters in analysing/explaining [Buddha’s] sutras
[00:00]
So the 2nd question is: as for the “the teachings”, actually Lama Tsong-kha-pa could have explained the teachings with his own words, [yet] why did he quote a passage from the Commentary on the “Lamp for Wisdom” [to explain what the teachings are]? Why? ([Monastics answered: “To demonstrate that the teachings] are from the pure [authentic] lineage.”) [So] does that mean what Lama Tsong-kha-pa explained is not from the pure lineage? Lama Tsong-kha-pa also upheld the pure lineages, [but] why did [he] still need to quote [from other sources]? ([Monastics replied:] “That is a kind of attitude.”) What kind of attitude? ([Monastics]: “The attitude of accentuating [reliable sources.]”) The attitude of accentuating reliable sources. Have you all thought about this question before? Has this aspect occurred [to you] during the discussion in the class? [00:32]
In the previous paragraph [in Teaching #341], [Master said:] “Why did he frequently quote passages from other commentaries? That is because we may not clearly grasp the meaning of the sutras. Thus, with those quotes from other commentaries, it will be easier for us to grasp the points the author tried to pinpoint with great clarity.” Then, [we are] introduced to a term, “the texts on knowledge,” explaining the purpose of the commentary. What is the purpose of composing a commentary? [It is] to explain the sutras, for we may not grasp the points of the sutras if we are to read them directly. [01:03]
Are we unable to grasp the [intended meaning] by reading [the sutras] on our own? Or able to grasp [the sutras’ intended meaning]? [01:08]
[Chances are we] thought we got the [intended meaning] before we come in contact with the commentaries; [but] then after reading the explanation in the annotations/commentaries written by the great lineage masters, suddenly it dawned on us that whatever we thought we understood are actually not understanding the content at all. Therefore, [the norm to] quote passages from the commentaries is needed. [01:25]
However, back to the question: Lama Tsong-kha-pa also was capable of composing the treatise, why is that instead of explaining the “the teachings” by himself directly [in his own words], he quoted a passage from the Commentary on the “Lamp for Wisdom”? The same question again. [To help us understand it better], for this question, we can listen to an explanation in the newer edition of Master’s Lamrim commentary. [01:44]
[05 37:28~39:25 V.1, P.46]
[Firstly,]
Let’s talk about the first greatness.
With regard to the teachings, Avalokitavrata’s Commentary on the “Lamp for Wisdom” says:
Concerning “teachings,” the scriptures of the Bhagavan accurately teach that which is to be thoroughly known, that which is to be eliminated, that which is to be manifested, and that which is to be cultivated by deities and humans who wish to attain the ambrosial state [of a nonabiding nirvana].
Thus the teachings are what the Conqueror explained well. [02:14]
Concerning “teachings”, isn’t that this section is about “the greatness of enabling one to know that all of the teachings are free of contradiction”? What does this mean? It means that the teachings taught by the Buddha are bountiful; immeasurably great numbers of them are remained in our world. Because the teachings were given to different recipients with various capacities, the teachings may be seemingly contradictory, and unavoidably at times the interpretations can cause conflict. In fact, this reveals disciples fall short in grasping the key points of the teachings. The sublime teachings are by no means contradictory. The first point is to clarify it. [02:52]
Thus, here Lama Tsong-kha-pa cited a passage from the Commentary on the “Lamp for Wisdom”. Actually, this is why both Master Atisha and Lama Tsong-kha-pa were so remarkable, given that they were fully qualified as Buddhas themselves. Nevertheless, what they both demonstrated is that they still would quote passages from Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and the great masters in the past. This serves as a great reminder for us! Let’s ponder: such great teachers as eminent as [Master Atisha and Lama Tsong-kha-pa] were the exact manifestation of Buddhas or Bodhisattvas. While they were giving teachings, they would still quote passages from the reliable sources. [What about us?] We, with few good qualities, are more often than not very fixated and we try to be creative and original; this is how the eminent great masters and we are strikingly different. Although this aspect is a minor matter, from now on we should be more careful! [03:43]
In the newer edition of Master’s Lamrim commentary, did you all hear why the Commentary on the “Lamp for Wisdom” was quoted? Have [you all] heard the explanation Master gave? [He] said: “such great teachers as eminent as [Master Atisha and Lama Tsong-kha-pa] were the exact manifestation of Buddhas or Bodhisattvas. While they were giving teachings, they would still quote passages from the reliable sources.” And then Master contrasted it with our present state of mind, right? “We, with few good qualities, are more often than not very fixated and we try to be creative and original”, meaning to begin with, [we] already do not have any much specific understanding of the sutras and scriptures, and neither have we attained experiential knowledge. However, when it comes to the Buddha Dharma, [we are] inclined to hit on something new and interpret it in our own way, instead of directly quoting an original passage from the lineage masters. I feel this is a huge and striking disparity [between the attitude of the great lineage masters and us]. What’s more, we are often pretty proud of ourselves, thinking that [we] do not have to use any original passage/quote from the commentaries as if we could explain the sutras more clearly and explicitly than those lineage masters in the past. [04:40]
In fact, [if we] study closely and read [those commentaries] meticulously, we would know that the magnificent pinnacle achievements some of those great lineage masters in the past had could be far beyond the level [we] could reach even if [we] exert ourselves for many lifetimes. Hence, it is usually very hard for us to achieve [that level of conscientiousness and assiduousness the great lineage masters had] in terms of their explanations of Buddha’s sutras and scriptures and the meticulousness of discerning of certain topics. Once we interpret [the sutras] based on our own understanding, [chances are] we would not be clear about the demarcation of the terms or their definitions. Furthermore, it is possible that sometimes the understanding we talk about is based on the superficial/scanty knowledge which is fundamentally not even covering the entire topics intended by great lineage masters. Thus, for this we should be extra careful. Master said: “this is how the eminent great masters and we are strikingly different”; namely, the huge difference lies in the careless attitude we have in terms of explaining the sutras and scriptures, compared with the meticulous attitude the great masters bear in analyzing Buddha’s sutras and scriptures! [05:29]
From this perspective, [we] realize that Master was always learning and absorbing in every bit of aspect; Thus, understandably, Master was very careful and meticulous about “quoting from commentaries”. He really took this effort to heart! [05:43]
【广海明月 讲次: 0342】
讲次 | 0342
标题 | 体会祖师解经的严谨态度
《广论》段落 | P8-L11 ~ P8-L13 今初……谓尽胜者所有善说。
音档 | 凤山寺版 05 37:28 ~ 39:25
手抄页/行 | 凤山寺版：第1册 P146-L6 ~ P147-L7
手抄段落 | 今初……我们现在要注意一下！
(更新日期: 2022年3月25日)
00:00
那么第二个问题：这个“圣教者”，其实宗大师可以用他自己的话来解释圣教的，他为什么要引《般若灯广释》？为什么呢？（清净的传承。）宗大师讲的就不是清净传承了吗？宗大师也有清净的传承，为什么一定要引呢？（一种态度。）什么态度？（重视依据的态度。）重视依据的态度。你们有想过这个问题吗？在讨论的时候有想过吗？00:32
前面有讲一段。“引用论上面的话来告诉我们，为什么处处地方引论呢？因为经上的内涵，我们不一定能够清楚明白，经过论的解说，针对着他要说的内容，说得清清楚楚。”所以就接触到了“对法”，解释这个论。论是解释什么的？解释经的，直接看经怕我们看不明白。01:03
我们是看不明白吗？还是可以看明白？01:08
没有接触到论的解释，会觉得自己明白了，然后一看那些祖师写的论的解释，突然发现自己看得明白的实在是完全地没有明白，所以要引论。01:25
但是还是那个问题：宗大师也可以造论，为什么不自己解释“圣教”，要引《般若灯广释》？还是这个问题。这个问题大家可以听一听师父在新版的《广论》里有一段解释。01:44
今初
先说第一个。
圣教者，如《般若灯广释》中云：“言圣教者，谓无倒显示，诸欲证得甘露胜位，若人若天，所应遍知，所应断除，所应现证，所应修行，即薄伽梵所说至言。”谓尽胜者所有善说。02:14
那个所言的“圣教”，它不是说“通达一切圣教无违”吗？什么意思呢？就是说在圣教，就是世尊讲的教法非常多，无量、无边，留在世间的就很多。因为对着不同的对象讲的，所以彼此之间难免有的时候会有意见的冲突，实际上这个是人不了解，圣教本身不会违背的，第一点是说明这个。02:52
所以现在他引证那个《般若灯论》。实际上这也就是阿底峡尊者跟宗喀巴大师，的确是真是大师们了不起，他自己条件都非常够，跟佛一样，可是他示现的时候，还是引祖师、佛菩萨的话来讲，这样。这个对我们来说也是很大的警惕！想想那种大师是佛菩萨无二无别亲自来的，他要讲的时候还要引证种种根据；那我们自己一无是处，往往自己别出心裁，自己很执着，这个是两个最大的差别。虽然这种小地方，我们现在要注意一下！03:43
在师父新版的《广论》里，大家有没有听到为什么是引《般若灯广释》？师父解释的理由有没有听到？说：“自己都是佛菩萨无二无别再来的，他讲的时候还是要引种种根据”；然后接着该对比我们的现行了，对吧？“那么我们自己一无是处，常常别出心裁，自己很执着”，就是本来对于经典也没有什么特别多的了解，对于证悟力也没有更多，但是讲到佛法的时候，偏偏爱讲自己的东西，不爱讲祖师的论的原话。我觉得这是一个非常大的差别，而且很多时候往往还挺自豪的，觉得可以不用讲论的原话，好像自己讲的意思可以比祖师讲得更明白。04:40
其实在慢慢看、慢慢看的时候，我们就知道有一些祖师他所达到的那种成就，可能是很多生的努力都无法达到的那种巅峰成就，所以他对于佛陀经典的解释，那个论议的严谨性通常是很难企及的。一旦用自己的意思来讲，多半你的边界可能会讲不好；再一个，可能有的时候讲个一知半解的理解根本不是他讲的全部的东西，所以这一点可能是要非常小心的。师父说：“这个是两个最大的差别”，就是指我们的内心对于经典解释的那种随意性，还有大德对佛陀的经典解释的严谨性，这个是很大的差别！05:29
从这个角度可以看到师父点点滴滴的地方都在学习、都在领会，所以师父应该是非常在意“引论”这件事，非常在意的！05:43