Amitabha Buddhist Centre
Basic Program – Module 6
The Wheel Weapon
Transcript of the teachings by Geshe Chonyi
Root verses from The Wheel Weapon, translated by Geshe Lhundub Sopa:
Wisdom Publications, USA, ed. 2001. Root verses are centred, in italics, with
verse numbers added
Lesson No: 18
Date: 7th April 2006
Lama Tsong Khapa said in, The Three Principles of the Path:
One who sees the infallible cause and effect
Of all phenomena in samsara and nirvana
And destroys all false perceptions
Has entered the path that pleases the Buddha.
First, we need to understand how all phenomena including samsara and
nirvana dependently arise, i.e. they come about through depending on
something else. Understanding that, we then understand how things actually
do not exist in the way that they appear to our minds. When we look at
phenomena, we grasp at them as being truly existent. We have to understand
that things do not exist in the way that they appear to us. With this
understanding, we would have entered the path that pleases the Buddha.
We need to get a good understanding of dependent arising, which will serve to
enhance our ascertainment of the law of cause and effect - the better our
understanding, the greater will be our ascertainment of the law of cause and
effect, that when we engage in positive actions, we will experience happiness;
when we engage in negative actions, it will lead to suffering.
Through understanding how all things do not exist inherently, we will see how
the law of cause and effect work and exist conventionally. It will also help our
understanding of dependent arising, that conventionally there is such a thing
as dependent origination.
‘Not existing inherently,’ means that all phenomena exist by depending on
something else and on that basis, is given a label. When we understand how
phenomena come about by depending on something else, i.e. dependently
arisen, that would also help us to understand how the law of cause and effect
works. When we believe or assert that things exist inherently or truly exist,
this completely contradicts the law of cause and effect, that causes lead to
effects.
It is very problematic when we believe phenomena exist inherently from their
own sides. For example, if the seed inherently exists, then it is very difficult to
explain how it can transform into a plant. When we assert lower realms or
good rebirths exist inherently, then it is difficult to explain how we can move
from one realm to another. When we say sentient beings exist inherently, then
it becomes difficult to explain how sentient beings can become buddhas. In the
same way, if a baby or young person exists inherently, then it is very difficult
to explain how that person will age.
Lesson 18
Page 1 of 6
Amitabha Buddhist Centre
Basic Program – Module 6
The Wheel Weapon
We must not leave things at that but really try to figure out in our minds why
it is like that. For example, when we assert that a youngster inherently exists,
the fallacy of that assertion is that it is tantamount to saying that that
youngster will never get old. We have to understand why there is a problem
with such assertions and how that problem comes about.
Today, I would like to explain a little what ‘emptiness’ means.
The very first thing we have to do when we try to understand the subject of
emptiness is to identify the object of negation, what it is that we are actually
trying to analyse. This is crucial because once we fail to identify correctly the
object of negation, no matter what we do after that, nothing will work and
there is not much benefit.
Once we identify the object of negation, then we have to investigate whether it
exists or not.
We have this feeling of oneself as ‘me’ or ‘I’. This mind that apprehends ‘I,’ has
many different modes of apprehension, at coarse and subtle levels. We may
apprehend the ‘I’ as:
 permanent, unitary and independent; or
 a self sufficient, substantially existent person; or
 established by way of its own uncommon mode of existence without
being posited through the force of appearing to a non-defective
awareness.
These are the different kinds of ‘I,’ which can be the objects of this mind that
thinks of ‘I’.
Here we are discussing the object of negation from the perspective of the
highest tenet (or philosophical system), the Prasangika-Madhyamika or the
Consequence Middle Way School.
When the innate feeling of ‘me’ or ‘I’ arises, there is this mind that thinks ‘I’.
The ‘I,’ which is the object of this mind, appears to exist independently of our
mental and physical aggregates, (i.e. our bodies or minds). It appears to exist
right there, within our bodies and minds.
An analogy would be when someone is trying to look for something in a very
dark room where nothing can be seen. That person gropes in the dark and
when he finally touches the object, he gets this strong feeling that the object is
right there. He would never think that the object is something merely labelled
(or posited) by the mind. Likewise, when the feeling of the ‘I’ or ‘self’ arises, we
do not see that the ‘I’ or ‘self’ is something which is merely labelled by the mind.
We see this ‘I’ or ‘self’ as being independent and solid.
This mind which grasps at the ‘I’ as existing independently on its own, (i.e.
being able to stand alone) and not merely labelled by the mind, is what we call
the innate grasping at self. The ‘I’ that is grasped by this innate conception,
this solid and independent ‘I’ is our object of negation.
Lesson 18
Page 2 of 6
Amitabha Buddhist Centre
Basic Program – Module 6
The Wheel Weapon
Having completed this crucial step of correctly identifying the object of
negation, we next investigate whether this ‘I,’ which appears to us as very solid
and independent exists or not? Is it independent of or does it depend on our
five aggregates?
Any phenomenon that exists is either:1. single (or one/same) or
2. different
There is no phenomenon that is not included in either one of or separate from
these two categories.
For example, a vase. Only a vase can be one with a vase. A pillar cannot be
one with a vase because a pillar is different from a vase. This is what we mean
by the concept of one (or single) and different.
If this solid and independent ‘I’ exists as not merely labelled by the mind and
appears to be separate from the aggregates, then it must be either:1. same as the aggregates (single) or
2. different from the aggregates (different)
‘I’ is one with the aggregates?:
What are the faults or problems of asserting that the ‘I’ is one with the
aggregates?
Since there are five aggregates, this would mean there are five ‘I’s or it would
suggest that since the ‘I’ is one with the aggregates, it is the same as saying
that there is only one aggregate.
Is the ‘I’ one with the mind?
When we think, ‘I am hungry/cold’, are we saying
that the mind is
hungry/cold? We conclude then that the ‘I,’ that is the object of negation, is
not one with the mind.
By reflecting like this, we have to come to the conclusion that the ‘I’ is not one
with the aggregates.
Since the ‘I’ cannot be one with the aggregates, then the other option is that
the ‘I’ is different from the aggregates.
‘I’ is different from the aggregates?
If the ‘I’ is different from the aggregates, then it has to be inherently different
from the aggregates, which would mean that they do not have any relationship
with one another nor do they depend on one another.
If that is the case, then it is equivalent to saying when the body is harmed, the
‘I’ is not harmed. We will not be able to posit that the ‘I’ is being harmed as
well.
Similarly, when the ‘I’ is being harmed, we will not be able to say that the
aggregates are being harmed if we assert that the ‘I’ is inherently different from
Lesson 18
Page 3 of 6
Amitabha Buddhist Centre
Basic Program – Module 6
The Wheel Weapon
the aggregates and that they do not depend on one another. This would go
against common sense. For example, when we are harmed in some way, we
say, ‘I am being harmed,’ or, ‘I am hurt’. This is the fault of thinking that the ‘I’
is inherently different from the aggregates.
The process of reasoning is as follows:
1. Identify clearly the object of negation in our minds. What are we targeting at?
2. When the object of negation appears clearly in our minds, then we have to
check whether it exists in the way it appears or not.
3. If the ‘I’ (the object of negation) exists, how does it exist? It can only exist in
one of two ways:a) same (single) with the aggregates or
b) different (different) from the aggregates
4. Examine whether the ‘I’ is one with the mind or not.
5. When we conclude that the ‘I’ is not one with the aggregates, we then
examine the other possibility – Is the ‘I’ different from the aggregates?
6. When the conclusion is that the ‘I’ is not inherently different from the
aggregates, we come to the final conclusion that:
If the ‘I’ is neither one with the aggregates nor different from the
aggregates, then the ‘I’ cannot exist!
After applying such logic and reasoning, we discover that the object of negation,
the ‘I’ that appears to our minds, does not exist in reality as it is neither one
with the aggregates nor different form the aggregates.
It is said in the texts that when practitioners reach that ascertainment, some
experience great joy while others experience great fear as they are on the verge
of realising emptiness.
We realise the selflessness of person, who is empty of this inherently existent
‘I,’ by going through the above process. When we realise the selflessness of
person, we negate the self of the person.
We are trying to negate both the self of person and self of phenomena. Once we
understand the process of negating the self of person and arrive at the
negation of the self of person, we can apply the same process to the negation of
the self of phenomena.
‘Phenomena,’ refers to anything other than the person. An example of the self
of phenomena would be our bodies. Our bodies appear as inherently existent
within this basis of designation labelled, ‘body’. Our bodies are collections of
flesh, blood and bones but this is not how we perceive our bodies or how they
appear to us. Our bodies appear to us as something very solid, not something
that is merely labelled by the mind.
So the object of negation now is this inherently existent, independent body. If
such a body exists, then, it is either one with its basis of designation or
different from the basis of designation.
Lesson 18
Page 4 of 6
Amitabha Buddhist Centre
Basic Program – Module 6
The Wheel Weapon
The basis of designation (or label), ‘body,’ is the collection of flesh, blood and
bones. If we say that this inherently existent and independent body is one with
the basis of designation, this means that just as there are three things (flesh,
blood and bones) that make up the basis of designation, in the same way there
should be three bodies.
Since this inherently existent, independent body is not one with the basis of
designation of flesh, blood and bones, then it has to be different from the basis
of designation. But if we assert this, then when we eliminate the flesh, blood
and bones, we should be able to find the body. But we will not be able to find
any body then.
The conclusion then is that, since the inherently existent and independent
body is neither one with nor different from the basis of designation, such an
inherently existent, independent body does not exist.
This process of reasoning can be applied to any phenomena be it permanent or
impermanent. In essence, we are checking whether a phenomenon exists
exactly the way it appears to our minds or not.
An example is the experience of feeling, ‘I am feeling this’ or ‘I am feeling that’.
We can only feel something in dependence on some object. We cannot feel
something without the object, which we are feeling. Again, this shows that our
feelings also cannot exist independently by themselves.
An example: wooden pillar.
 The basis of designation for wooden pillar does exist.
 The wooden pillar does not exist from the side of that thing which we call
‘wooden pillar,’ but is labelled by the mind as, ‘wooden pillar.’ This is
how ‘wooden pillar’ actually exists in reality.
 But the wooden pillar does not appear to our minds as something that is
merely labelled by the mind.
 The wooden pillar appears to us as existing right there, from its own side,
within the basis of designation.
The wooden pillar is made from a piece of wood from a tree. It is called ‘a
pillar,’ because of its function of supporting a beam. But it is incorrect to say
that as soon it performed the function of supporting the beam, the pillar
existed right there from its own side without depending on the mind.
If the wooden pillar existed in the way it appeared to us, then even before the
wood was made into the pillar, the ‘wooden pillar’ would have appeared to us
as ‘wooden pillar’ from the very beginning since it already existed from its own
side. But this is not the case.
If such an inherently existent wooden pillar existed, what happens when we
place it horizontally and make it function as a beam? Where has the inherently
existent wooden pillar gone?
(Geshe-la: The inherently existent pillar has changed into the beam!)
Lesson 18
Page 5 of 6
Amitabha Buddhist Centre
Basic Program – Module 6
The Wheel Weapon
The inherently existent beam also does not exist because if we move the beam
to perform the function of a truss, it becomes a truss. This shows that the
wooden pillar does not exist from the side of the basis of designation. If it does,
then the pillar would not be able to perform any other functions.
The non-associated compositional factor is the class of impermanent
phenomena that is neither matter nor consciousness. An example is time, as
expressed in year, month, day, etc.
When we think ‘year,’ again it appears as something which is solidly existing
from its own side, but a year is actually something that is imputed on the
collection of days or months that make up a year. That is how ‘ year’ exists.
If a solid, independent, inherently existent year exists from it own side, then
using the same logic and reasoning, it will exist either as:1. one with a collection of 12 months or
2. different from a collection of 12 months
If ‘year’ is inherently one with the collection of 12 months, since there are 12
months, then there should be 12 years. If ‘year’ is inherently different from the
collection of 12 months, then by subtracting month by month, at the end of
the 12 months, there should still remain a year.
We therefore conclude that since the inherently existent year is neither one
with nor different from the basis of designation, it does not exist. Therefore, the
inherently existent year does not exist at all.
This is how we rationalise that impermanent phenomenon does not exist But
we have to explain how permanent phenomenon does not exist as well. For
example, how space does not exist inherently from its own side. We say, ‘We
see space,’ but in reality, that is not space. That is the basis of designation of
space. When we see something, that would be form, an object of the eye sense
and form is an impermanent phenomenon. Space is a permanent phenomenon.
The sky and space are different. When it is dark, the sky is dark. When the
sun comes out, the sky is bright and, sometimes, we may even see rainbows.
All these changes are clear signs that the sky is an impermanent phenomenon.
Transcribed by: Phuah Soon Ek & Angie Xiao
Date: 16th April 2006
Edited by: Cecilia Tsong
Date: 19th April 2006
Checked by: Yap Siew Kee
Date: 20th April 2006
Lesson 18
Page 6 of 6