Amitabha Buddhist Centre
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom
Transcript of the teachings by Geshe Chonyi
Root text from The Medium-Length Exposition of the Stages of the Path
of Enlightenment Practised by Persons of Three Capacities by Lama
Tsongkhapa, translation Jeffrey Hopkins, Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition
of Wisdom © 2008 Jeffrey Hopkins, Snow Lion Publications.
All outline references refer to the outline by Trijang Rinpoche unless
otherwise stated. Outlines are in bold.
Lesson No: 47
Date: 29th March 2011
Question: Is the mind that realises subtle conventionalities a collective
engager (i.e., it realises all the characteristics of its object directly without
eliminating anything) or an eliminative engager?
Geshe-la: I will have to think about this.
***********
B. Delineating the selflessness of phenomena
a. How there is no difference in subtlety among objects of negation, but rather a
distinction between two selflessnesses on account of their subjects
b. How it is settled
1) Refutation through moving over the reasoning explained earlier
2) Refutation through another reasoning not explained earlier
a) Showing the reasoning of dependent-arising
i) Mentioning the source
ii) Explanation of what the sutra [quotation] means
iii) Praise to the argument of dependent origination as that which cuts all inferior
views
iv) Identification of where the view goes wrong – the extremes of exaggeration
and denigration
v) How the two extremes are overcome at the same time through the reasoning of
dependent origination
vi) Presentation[s] of dependent origination
1' Presentation common to Cittamatrins
2' The Madhyamika's uncommon way of presenting dependent origination
vii) How truly established sameness and difference are also refuted by these [two
arguments]
viii) Corresponding statements in Nagarjuna's writings
ix) The way it is praised as a view in which appearances and emptiness are seen
to be complementary
x) Instruction that it is necessary to differentiate between inherent existence and
non-existence and, generally, between the four types of existence and nonexistence
1' The actual [advice]
2' How you fall to the two extremes if you do not differentiate between them
along with a source
3' The manner in which those two extremes are eliminated
4' The mere extremes of existence and non-existence and the two extremes
associated with the places where the view goes wrong do not have the same
meaning
5' Sources for that
6' The distinction that through [the phrase] 'neither existent nor non-existent'
and the like there is no falling to extremes, is a fixation on mere words
Lesson 47
Page 1 of 6
Amitabha Buddhist Centre
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom
1' The actual [advice]
In order for such to happen, it is necessary to differentiate between:


inherent existence and mere existence
absence of existence by way of its [the object's] own character and non-existence.
It is as Chandrakirti’s Commentary on the "Supplement to (Nagarjuna's) ‘Treatise on the Middle'"
says:
While knowing even the presentation of causes and effects, which are reflections without
inherent existence, what wise person would -- through observing that forms, feelings, and
so forth, which do not abide separately from causes and effects, are merely existent ascertain them as having inherent existence? Therefore, although observed to exist, they
have no inherently existent production (Page 93 of the root text).
If you have any questions or qualms pertaining to this section, bring them
up now. If there is anything you do not understand, ask. Otherwise, we
will continue.
Geshe-la: If anything is unclear, ask immediately. I told all of you to read
before you come to class. When I teach and you don’t understand, you
must ask immediately. In this way, we can finish (this chapter) in two or
three classes.
Question: Does the “absence of existence by way of its [the object's] own
character” have the same meaning as “absence of inherent existence”?
Answer: Yes.
Geshe-la: What does this phrase, “do not abide separately from causes
and effects” mean? Is Chandrakirti saying that causes and effects are
one? Don’t causes and effects abide separately?
(Inconclusive responses from students)
Geshe-la: If you have thought about it, then this sentence should be easy
to explain because I have explained it before.
2' How you fall to the two extremes if you do not differentiate between them along with a
source
When those are not differentiated, you do not pass beyond the two extremes of
superimposition and deprecation since then once a thing exists, it exists by way of its own nature,
and once something does not exist by way of its own nature, it is totally non-existent.
Chandrakirti’s Commentary on (Aryadeva's) "Four Hundred" says:
According to the proponents of [inherently existent] things, as long as a thing's existence
occurs, [its establishment by way of] its own entity also exists, and when devoid of
[establishment by way of] their own entity, things do not exist in all ways, like the horns of
a donkey. Thereby, since they do not pass beyond propounding the two [extremes of
permanence and annihilation], it is difficult to fit together all their assertions (Page 93 of
the root text). .
Lesson 47
Page 2 of 6
Amitabha Buddhist Centre
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom
3' The manner in which those two extremes are eliminated
Therefore, you are released from all extremes of existence through the absence of inherent
existence, and you are released from all extremes of non-existence through being able to posit,
with respect to that, causes and effects that do not inherently exist (Page 94 of the root text).
4' The mere extremes of existence and non-existence and the two extremes associated with
the places where the view goes wrong do not have the same meaning
Concerning anta [that is, "end," "extreme," "limit," "pole," and the like] Vasubandhu's Principles
of Explanation says:
Anta is used for finish, end,
Proximity, direction, and lowliness.
The antas mentioned this way [in Vasubandhu's text] are also indeed accepted in our own system,
but with respect to the anta (extreme) that is a place of going wrong with respect to the view, as in
"devoid of the extremes," Kamalashila's Illumination of the Middle says:
If in the middle there were any ultimate nature of inherent existence of the mind, then
since it had that, how could even manifest adherences to "permanence" and
"impermanence" with regard to it be extremes (anta)? It is not reasonable to say that
proper mental application in accordance with the suchness of things is a situation of falling
[to an extreme (anta)].
As he says, mental application in accordance with how an object actually is, is not a situation of
falling [to an extreme]. Hence, just as in the world an abyss is called an extreme and falling into it
is called "falling into an extreme,” the apprehension of phenomena as truly existent and the
apprehension that nothing at all is established and nothing exists are [cases of] falling to extremes
of permanence and annihilation—the opposite of the correct fact. However, apprehensions that
phenomena do not ultimately exist and that actions and their effects, and so on, in conventional
terms exist and so forth are not apprehensions of extremes because the objects abide in the way
that they are apprehended (Page 94 of the root text).
What this section is saying is indicated in the outline. You need to
distinguish between the general extreme of existence and non-existence
versus the two extremes that are obstacles to realising the view.
The word “anta” can be translated in different ways depending on the
context. “Anta” can mean the finish or end of something. It can also refer
to proximity, the end of a direction and lowliness [as in the lowest]. It has
all these connotations.
There is a limit after which something ceases or finishes. The edge of a
cliff is like such a limit or end, beyond which you will fall off into the
abyss. Such a convention or term exists. Generally speaking, one refers to
an extreme or limit but here, in this context, it is referring specifically to
the extremes that hinder your attainment of the view.
There are two extremes:
1. The extreme of existence refers to inherent existence.
2. The extreme of non-existence refers to phenomena that do not exist.
There are minds that apprehend these two extremes so there are views
holding onto an extreme. The apprehension of phenomena as being
inherently existent and the apprehension of phenomena as being nonLesson 47
Page 3 of 6
Amitabha Buddhist Centre
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom
existent are the two principal obstacles to actualising the view in one’s
mind. When you apprehend phenomena to exist in either of these ways,
then you have fallen into one of these two extremes.
In this context, the apprehensions of both extremes have their own
objects. The objects of these two apprehensions must necessarily be nonexistent, i.e., they do not exist in reality. Whereas the apprehension of
phenomena as not being truly existent and the apprehension of
phenomena as being conventionally existent (i.e., how they exist in
conventional terms) are not apprehensions of the extremes because they
accord with reality.
The essence of this section is that you must distinguish between the mere
extremes of existence and non-existence and the extremes that interfere
with or obstruct the attainment of the view of reality. In this context, you
must identify these two extremes correctly.
5' Sources for that
For, Nagarjuna's Refutation of Objections says that if [something] is not ultimately non-existent,
then it ultimately exists.
If the absence of inherent existence were disposed of [with respect to any phenomenon],
Then [that phenomenon] would be established as inherently existent.
and:
We [Proponents of the Middle] do not make explanations
Without asserting the conventions [of the world].
and in his Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness says:
This worldly mode of "Depending on that,
This arises" is not refuted (Pages 94 – 95 of the root text).
You can clarify if there is anything you do not understand. If you don’t
understand anything at all, let me know.
Geshe-la: You must ask, if there is even a single word you don’t
understand.
Question: With reference to the outline: “4' The mere extremes of existence
and non-existence and the two extremes associated with the places where
the view goes wrong do not have the same meaning,” what does “the places
where the view goes wrong” mean?
Answer: The point of that outline is that you need to make a distinction
between something that exists and something that does not exist,
generally speaking, versus the two extremes that interfere with the
development of the view. The outline points out that there is a difference
between the two extremes that interfere with your realisation of
emptiness, the view, and existence and non-existence in general because
they also have a limit. Another way of saying this will be: “What are the
limits of existence or non-existence?”
Lesson 47
Page 4 of 6
Amitabha Buddhist Centre
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom
Question: The “mere extremes of existence and non-existence exist” are
reality. Do “the two extremes associated with the places where the view
goes wrong” relate to the views holding on to the extremes so they are
wrong?
Answer: There is no mistake in the outline. The “two extremes associated
with the places where the view goes wrong” means that the extremes
referred to here are the obstacles that cause you not to find the view.
Question: Do the “two extremes” refer to the extreme of annihilation and
extreme of permanence?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Are the “mere extremes of existence and non-existence” referring
to conventional existence and ultimate non-existence?
Answer: The two extremes that interfere with finding the correct view are
true existence and the non-existence of phenomena. There are then the
apprehensions of these two extremes – the mind that apprehends
phenomena to be truly existent and the mind that thinks that a particular
phenomenon or group of phenomena do not exist whatsoever. These two
apprehensions are the greatest obstacles to you actualising the view.
Vasubandhu in his Principles of Explanation says that there are different
meanings to the word “anta,” the limit or extreme. Those limits or
extremes as explained by Vasubandhu exist.
Question: I don’t understand the sentence in page 94:
Kamalashila's Illumination of the Middle says:
If in the middle there were any ultimate nature of inherent existence of the mind, then
since it had that, how could even manifest adherences to "permanence" and
"impermanence" with regard to it be extremes (anta)?
Answer: The meaning is that the extreme of existence will be true
existence. When you apprehend phenomena to be truly existent, then you
have fallen into that extreme.
Question: In the same sentence, “If in the middle”, what does this “middle”
refer to?
Answer: The “middle” is not falling into either extremes.
Question: So it is referring to the right view?
Answer: If you are abiding in the middle without falling into either
extreme, that means you have gained an understanding, perhaps even a
realisation. Even having some faith or belief, thinking, “Phenomena are
Lesson 47
Page 5 of 6
Amitabha Buddhist Centre
Lama Tsongkhapa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom
not truly existent but phenomena exist” is abiding in the middle and not
falling into either extreme.
Question: Is Kamalashila a proponent of the Prasangika tenets? I had the
impression that he is a proponent of the AMWS?
Answer: Kamalashila is known as a proponent of AMWS.
6' The distinction that through [the phrase] 'neither existent nor non-existent' and the like
there is no falling to extremes, is a fixation on mere words
Therefore, distinctions:


between the two -that something is not existent (yod pa min pa) and that something does
not exist (med pa) [whereas these actually have the same meaning], and
between the two -that something is not non-existent (med pa min pa) and that something
exists {yod pa) [whereas these actually have the same meaning]
are reduced to merely being differences in mode of expression. No matter how much one analyzes
how the meanings of both of those appear to the mind, there is no difference at all; hence, to
propound that one falls or does not fall to extremes through those modes [of expression] is
exhausted as fixation on mere words (Page 95 of the root text).
This is the negation of views brought to Tibet by a Chinese monk. This
monk asserted that things are not existent and are non-existent. Lama
Tsongkhapa says that there is no different between saying something is
non-existent and saying that something does not exist. It is just a
different way of saying the same thing. The meaning is the same.
Similarly, it is just a matter of using different words when one says
something is not non-existent and that something exists. Other than the
different words used, the meaning is the same.
Does something that is not non-existent exist? What it implies is
existence. When you say something is not existent, it means it does not
exist.
Question: Under the outline: “x) Instruction that it is necessary to
differentiate between inherent existence and non-existence and, generally,
between the four types of existence and non-existence”, what are the four
types of existence and non-existence?
Answer: In general, existence and non-existence are the two types. The
other two types are inherent existence and inherent non-existence
Please read the next few pages. If you do your reading, we will be able to
finish them quickly.
Translated by Ven. Tenzin Gyurme
Transcribed by Phuah Soon Ek and Vivien Ng
Edited by Cecilia Tsong
Checked by Shirley Soh
Lesson 47
Page 6 of 6