No More Learning

? -- No absolute basis for non-discrimination - everything exist conventionally: On the other hand, because those are not completely non-existent either (there is no real non-existence in the duality existence vs non-existence), we should think everything is the same, not drop all discrimination, do nothing, drop all paths. That would be like killing ourselves; we cannot escape samsara like that. They do exist conventionally, and are still dependently arisen and functional. There is still Dependent Origination, the Wheel of Life, karma formation and its consequences; they are just not inherently existent or absolute.
? -- The Middle Way in discrimination: Everything is not different, not the same; non-dual: not two, not one. )
.
(-- From the point of view of their fundamental nature, there are no distinctions among phenomena, for everything is
99 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
equally empty of true existence.
-- If any reasoning could disprove the thesis concerning emptiness of true existence, we would be convinced, but since things cannot be proved truly existent, you should accept only our thesis.
-- If the nature of internal and external things were truly existent, they would not depend on causes and conditions. Also differentiations of truly existent and not truly existent are inappropriate with regard to the absence of truly existent things. There are no differences in the entity of space, because it is a mere absence of obstructing form. Similarly regarding emptiness of true existence, the nature seen in all substantial entities, [stanza 191] says:
~ Whoever sees one thing,
~ Is said to see all.
~ That which is the emptiness of one
~ Is the emptiness of all.
-- Sutra says, "Whoever has come to know the non-functional with regard to functional things has no attachment to functional things. " There are no distinctions of truly existent and not truly existent with regard to any phenomenon whatsoever. )
.
L5: [2. Refuting the justification]
L6: [a. Appropriateness of accepting the thesis of emptiness of true existence]
.
\ ###
\ 389.
\ If owing to non-existence you claim
\ No reply is made to the other's thesis,
\ Why would you not also prove
\ Your own thesis which is refuted by reasons?
.
(i. e. Failure to prove any side of a duality: If you still think dualities are real and that one of the two opposite thesis must be right and the other false, then how come you cannot prove your thesis ? Your failure only proves that taking side in any duality is never wise; we need to transcend all dualities, because all views are flawed (never absolute), because everything is empty of inherent existence because dependently arisen. )
.
(-- If opponents of the Middle Way nevertheless choose to dispute this thesis, they must convincingly establish their own position, yet they repeatedly fail to do so.
-- Challenge: After first analyzing, you should either accept emptiness or make a reply.
-- Objection: It would be appropriate to make a reply if the slightest thing were accepted as truly existent, but since according to you everything is non-existent, how can any reply be made?
-- Answer: If you claim that no reply is made to the Madhyamika thesis because everything is non-existent, why should it not also be proper to prove your own thesis which is refuted by the reasons that prove emptiness? Since one cannot refute another's thesis without proving one's own, yours has become non-existent. )
.
L6: [b. Difficulty of finding a thesis refuting emptiness of true existence]
.
\ ###
\ 390.
\ Though the world says it is easy
\ To find reasons with which to refute,
.
(i. e. Assertion: Even if one is unable to prove one's thesis, it is said and well known in the world that reasons which refute others' theses are easy to find. )
.
\ Why can the errors regarding
\ The others' thesis not be stated?
.
(i. e. The perfection of emptiness is not refutable because it is not a thesis, not a view, not a system. It is a negation without affirming anything. It is like space, like true cessation. It depends on nothing. It is not produced. )
.
(-- Thus finding cogent arguments that invalidate the Madhyamika position is obviously not as simple as they claim.
-- Assertion: Even if one is unable to prove one's thesis, it is said and well known in the world that reasons which refute others' theses are easy to find.
100 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
-- Answer:
-- Since in that case you too must be in possession of those easily found reasons with which to refute, why are even you unable to fault the others' thesis, that of the Madhyamikas? Thus as you are unable to fault the others' thesis, reasons refuting emptiness are not easy to find. )
.
L4: [C. Showing parity of reasoning with regard to true existence or lack of true existence] L5: [1. Both emptiness of true existence and true existence
are either equally established or not established merely by words]
.
\ ###
\ 391.
\ If just by saying "They exist"
\ Things really did exist,
\ Why should they not also be non-existent
\ Just by saying "They do not exist"?
.
(i. e. It is not because it is written in the Abhidharma that it is absolutely true: We have already shown that it is absurd to pretend that things are inherently existing. So the teachings on this subject in the Abhidharma should not be taken as absolute, but merely as adapted skillful means for those not ready for the subtle emptiness, as provisional truths requiring further interpretation. They are not definitive truths like taught in the Heart of Wisdom Sutras, or in the teachings of Nagarjuna and his disciples. )
.
(-- If things were truly existent merely because one says they are, they would, by the same argument, be empty of true existence merely by saying they are; words alone do not affect reality.
-- If even without reasoning, but merely by saying the words "They exist," things existed as their own suchness, why should their emptiness of true existence not also be established merely by our saying the words "They do not exist truly"? The reasoning is the same in all respects. Therefore, rejecting assertions regarding the two extremes, we both should firmly establish the textual system free from all fabrications which asserts non-existence of the two extremes. )
.
L5: [2. Mere designation as truly existent will not make it so]
.
\ ###
\ 392.
\ If a thing is not non-existent
\ Because the term "existent" is ascribed,
\ Neither is it existent
\ because the term "existent" is applied.
.
(i. e. Otherwise, there are other books that says other things . . . And it is not because someone say that this was said by the Buddha that it makes it an absolute truth. It only proves that it was used as another adapted skilful means in a certain occasion by the Buddha. The Buddha said to stay away from all extremes. )
.
(-- Assertion: If things do not exist ultimately, the designation "things exist" is incorrect and as unreasonable as terming a barren woman's child existent.
-- Answer: If things do not lack true existence because the designation "they are and exist" is ascribed, neither are they truly existent because the designation "they exist truly" is applied. Calling someone with good eyesight blind or someone with a short life long-lived does not make them so. Besides, if things could be accomplished by words alone, it would be just as reasonable to accept that they lack true existence as to think they are truly existent. )
.
L5: [3. If there were true existence because ordinary people use the verbal convention that things are truly existent, then being conventionally existent they could not exist as their own suchness]
.
\ ###
\ 393.
\ If everything is a convention
\ Because expressed by ordinary people,
\ How can anything which exists
\ As [its own] suchness be a convention?
101 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
.
(i. e. They could exist conventionally : On the other hand, it is ok to accept them as existing conventionally if they are
so. But obviously this means that they do not exist on their own, inherently; they are mere conventions, like illusion. We do not deny that. )
.
(-- Another's assertion: Words do not reveal an object's entity. If they did, one's mouth would burn when saying "fire" or be full when saying "pot. " Therefore we assert that ordinary people all have means of expression and terms for that which is being expressed which do not touch an object's own entity.
-- Answer: Supposedly things all exist inherently and as conventions because ordinary people speak of them by means of words which do not touch their entity. But how can anything that exists inherently, existing as its own suchness, be a convention? It could only be ultimately existent. )
.
L4: [D. Refuting non-existence as the thesis]
L5: [1. Refuting that negation of truly existent things makes things utterly non-existent]
.
\ ###
\ 394.
\ If things are non-existent because
\ Things all do not exist,
\ In that case it is incorrect that all these
\ Concern the non-existence of things.
.
(i. e. Emptiness doesn't mean complete non-existence: that would be falling to the other extreme, nihilism. Even if everything is empty of inherent existence, they are still dependently arisen and functional. Everything is dependent on the mind labeling it, but still not from the mind only. Nothing is really existent, non-existent, both, neither. The duality existence vs non-existence has to be transcended by directly seeing the real nature of the duality itself - not taking one side and rejecting the other, nor accepting both, nor rejecting both. )
.
(-- Assertion: Since you deny that things have true existence, things are non-existent.
-- Answer: If even the slightest thing is non-existent because things are not truly existent, it is incorrect that all Madhyamika theses concern the non-existence of things through refutation of previously existent truly established things, for there has never been any true existence. )
.
L5: [2. As there are no truly existent things that which is non-functional cannot be truly existent either]
.
\ ###
\ 395.
\ Since a thing does not exist
\ A non-thing cannot exist.
\ Without a thing's existence,
\ How can a non-thing be established?
.
(i. e. Another reason - Because something that has never inherently existed cannot be completely non-existent later: If there is no inherent production of anything, if everything is empty of inherent existence, then there could be no inherent cessation or anything. So emptiness could not mean complete-non-existence. - Nirvana is not produced by dropping everything, since nothing was existent in the first place. It is just a matter of directly seeing this, which is like seeing luminous space. )
.
(-- Since truly existent functional things, the object of negation, do not exist, their non-functional negation cannot be truly existent. In the world a completely disintegrated thing is said to be non-functional. In keeping with this, a completely disintegrated pot would not be feasible if the pot had never existed. Thus how could the non-functional be truly existent, when there are no truly existent functional things? The existence of a dependent thing is not feasible without that on which it depends. )
.
L4: [E. Refuting that things are not empty because analogies and reasons to establish emptiness exist]
L5: [1. Showing the invalidity in the form of absurd consequences [of asserting that] there is true existence because there are reasons]
.
102 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
\ ###
\ 396.
\ If things are not empty because
\ They are empty by virtue of reasons,
\ The thesis would not be distinct from the reasons,
\ And thus the reasons would not exist.
.
(i. e. Could emptiness be an effect of a certain type of logic - reasons? : Let's suppose that it is a series of reasons that makes things empty of inherent existence, that they were not like this before the reasoning. This would mean the emptiness depends on those reasons, depends on a certain type of logic. That makes those reasons the "causes" and emptiness the "effect". Again using the method described above we could observe that this production is not inherent because the causes and the effect cannot be different or separate in time, nor the same or simultaneous. In other words there is no absolute causes (reasons) that could produce the effect (emptiness), and no absolute effect. Both are interdependent, co-dependently arisen concepts, empty of inherent existence because dependently arisen. And all this only confirm that everything is already empty even before any reasoning. )
.
(-- It is a mistake to think that things were previously truly existent, but are rendered non-existent through refutation of their true existence. They never existed in this way in the first place.
-- Assertion: In order to prove emptiness you must adduce reasons. Thus since the reasons exist, things are not empty, for like the reasons everything else is also truly existent.
-- Answer: If things were not empty because emptiness of true existence is established through reasons, and the thesis and reasons were inherently distinct, they would be unrelated. If the thesis were not inherently distinct from the reason but inherently one with it, they would have to be one and therefore what is to be proved could not be understood by depending on the reason. Then it follows that there are no correct reasons, since the fallacy of there being no reasons arises when one asserts truly existent things. Therefore all phenomena are established as lacking inherent existence. )
.
L5: [2. Showing the invalidity in the form of absurd consequences [of asserting that] things are not empty because there
are analogies]
.
\ ###
\ 397.
\ If things are not empty because
\ There are analogies for emptiness,
\ Can one say, "Just like the crow,
\ So too the self is black"?
.
(i. e. Could emptiness be an effect of a certain type of logic - analogies? : Same reasoning as the previous verse in the case of "logical analogies", otherwise everything would be possible like the example in this verse. )
.
(About thesis and analogies:
-- Neither the existence of reasons nor analogies establishing emptiness can be used to support the thesis that things are truly existent, for the reasons and analogies themselves lack true existence.
-- Assertion: Since there are analogies for emptiness of inherent existence, such as the reflection and so forth, everything else, like those analogies, exists and is not empty.
-- Answer: Is the analogy related or unrelated to the reason's meaning? The first has already been precluded by the reasoning which refutes truly existent reasons. In the second case, if the meaning is established through an analogy unrelated to the reason, is one able to say, "Just as the crow is black, so too is the self," because they are alike in being functional things? One should be able to do so. Yet an analogy, merely by virtue of its existence, is not suitable as an analogy for true existence. )
.
L4: [F. Explaining the purpose of teaching emptiness]
.
\ ###
\ 398.
\ If things exist inherently
\ What good is it to perceive emptiness?
\ Perception by way of conception binds.
\ This is refuted here.
103 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
.
(i. e. The Middle Way about logic: The fact that all logic - reasons, analogies, . . . - are empty of inherent existence doesn't mean that it is completely non-existent, useless, meaningless. We still can use illusions to help to go over other illusions - the important is that there is a progression toward reality. Even if emptiness and Dependent Origination are both empty of inherent existence, they are still dependently arisen and functional. They are efficient antidotes in their proper situation. - We have no choice, we cannot jump from here to Nirvana without a virtuous path, without a gradual deconditioning. A gradual path composed of more and more subtle methods and wisdom, of adapted skillful means, can help in gradually seeing through our conditioning / karma, and ultimately attain total Liberation. Using logic showing the absurdity of the illusions, of our conditioning, is part of this. -- It is not because everything is empty of inherent existence that everything is completely non-existent, useless, meaningless, or that we should drop everything, drop all paths, or kill ourselves. That would be jumping to the other extreme, and certainly not escaping samsara. )
.
(-- Question: If analogies, reasons and all things do not exist, what is the purpose of writing all the chapters of your treatise?
-- Answer: It is for the attainment of liberation and omniscience through understanding the meaning of suchness.
-- If things existed inherently, what good would there be in perceiving / emptiness, since it would be erroneous? Thinking of things as truly existent causes one to accumulate actions and thereby wander in cyclic existence, but through fully understanding that all phenomena lack inherent existence, one gains release from worldly existence Thus as long as one sees things as truly existent, because of conceptions which cling to their true existence, one is bound to cyclic existence. In this treatise, therefore, the truly existent person and aggregates, which are the referent objects of conceptions of true existence are refuted by an extensive collection of reasoning. Sutra says, "All phenomena are empty in that they do not exist inherently" and so forth. Accordingly, this was written to teach lack of inherent existence, which does not contradict the acceptance in our system of al dependently arising phenomena. )
.
L4: [G. Showing that conceptions of extremes of existence are erroneous]
.
\ ###
\ 399.
\ To say one exists and the other does not
\ Is neither reality nor the conventional.
\ Therefore it cannot be said
\ That this exists but that does not.
.
(i. e. About the Mind Only School - the duality world-mind: One of the extremes, or skillful means, consist of thinking that only the mind inherently exist, and that everything else are completely non-existent, total fabrications of the mind. But this theory doesn't make sense nor from an absolute point of view, neither from a conventional point of view. We have already shown that everything is empty of inherent existence because everything is dependently arisen, and that there is no exception at all, not even for the three gems, dependent origination or emptiness, causality space or time, parts or characteristics, . . . A consciousness cannot exist without being conscious of something; these are co-dependent. - This is about the duality world-mind. Taking one side as absolute and the other not is not transcending the problem; it is falling into one extreme. The solution is to see their interdependence, their emptiness of inherent existence. Staying away from the four extremes: taking one side and rejecting the other, taking both sides, rejecting both sides. This applies to all dualities. )
.
(-- Among our own sectarians, Vijnaptivadins and all those who have not understood the actual meaning of the scriptures assert that consciousness is truly existent, and that external objects do not even exist conventionally. This is therefore shown to be wrong, for both are alike in existing conventionally but not ultimately.
-- To say that one exists and the other does not is not a presentation of reality, since both do not exist ultimately and are not ultimate truths. Nor is it a presentation of the conventional, since both exist conventionally and are conventional truths. Therefore all five aggregates exist conventionally but not ultimately, and so it cannot be said that mind and mental factors exist truly while external objects do not even exist conventionally. Thus Madhyamikas, too, accept both external objects and consciousness as they are known in the world. )
.
L4: [H. Impossibility of refuting through reasoning that which is free from extremes]
.
\ ###
\ 400.
\ AGAINST ONE WHO HOLDS NO THESIS THAT [THINGS]
104 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
\ EXIST, DO NOT, OR DO AND DO NOT EXIT,
\ COUNTER-ARGUMENTS CANNOT BE RAISED
\ NO MATTER HOW LONG [ONE TRIES].
.
(i. e. The perfection of wisdom is not refutable because it is not a thesis, not a view, not a system. This perfection consist of staying away from all four extreme (Tetralemma)s: existence, non-existence, both, neither. It consist of staying away from all four positions concerning any duality. It is the Middle Way: not accepting any view, not rejecting any view. And since there is no other conceptual possibility, it is a negation without affirming anything. It is like space, like true cessation. It depends on nothing. It is not produced. It is indestructible, and has incommensurable powers. Why? Because it is almost perfectly in accord with the real non-dual nature of everything which is beyond any conceptualization and seen only by a Buddha. )
.
(-- Though things do not exist in and of themselves, they nevertheless exist. Through understanding their true mode of existence, we can gain freedom.
-- When assertions regarding true existence of things and so forth have been thoroughly refuted in this way, it is impossible to state any refutation of the assertions regarding emptiness.
-- Assertion: Even though we are unable to answer you at present, you will receive an answer--there will be those who make great effort on behalf of the Tathagata's teaching.
-- Answer: That is a futile hope! If we held a faulty thesis, it could be refuted by proving its converse.
-- No Madhyamikas hold the erroneous theses that things are inherently existent, that even the slightest thing is non- existent, that non-things are inherently both existent and non-existent, or neither. No matter how long one tries, no counter-arguments can be raised. You should understand that refuting skilled proponents of emptiness is as impossible as drawing pictures in space or causing space pain by beating it with an iron bar.
-- The Master Dharmadasa gave one analogy for each stanza of the first eight chapters. Fearing an excess of words, they have merely been cited but not elaborated in detail. )
.
L3: [The summarizing stanza:]
.
\ ###
\ The sun's light dispels all darkness.
\ Darkness has no power to destroy the sun's light.
\ The correct view destroys all extreme conceptions,
\ Banishing any opportunity for controversy. .
(i. e. The perfection of Emptiness is irrefutable. )
.
\ ###
\ This is the sixteenth chapter from the Four Hundred on the Yogic Deeds, showing how to meditate on settling [the procedure between] spiritual guides and students.
.
This concludes the commentary on the sixteenth chapter, showing how to meditate on settling [the procedure between] spiritual guides and students, from Essence of Good Explanations, Explanation of the "Four Hundred on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas".
.
105 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
L1: [The Colophon - P. 301]
.
\ ###
\ This concludes the Treatise of Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas from the mouth of Aryadeva, the spiritual son at the Exalted Naga's feet. He was born miraculously from the heart of a lotus on the island of Sinhala. Having crossed the ocean of our own and others' tenets himself, he made the Middle Way most clear by distinguishing between correct and incorrect views.
.
\ It was translated and [the meaning] settled in the temple of Ratnaguptavihara in the center of the glorious Kasmicri city of Anupamapura by the Indian abbot Suksmajana and the Tibetan translator Ba-tsap Nyi-ma-rak.
.
(This concludes the explanation both of the great trailblazer and Bodhisattva, the Master Aryadeva's work Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas and its commentary by the Master Candrakirti.
.
It was translated from the Indian into the Tibetan Language in the temple of Ratnaguptavihara in the center of the glorious Kasmiri city of Anupamapura by the Indian abbot Suksmajana, son of the Bramhmin Sajjana from the paternal line of the Brahmin Ratnavajra and by the Tibetan translator Ba-tsap Nyi-ma-drak who had consummate understanding of all texts on sutra and tantra. The meaning of the text was properly settled by explaining and listening to it.
.
~ May the one predicted by the Conqueror who attained the supreme state,
~ As well as Aryadeva and the glorious Candrakirti,
~ Who most clearly elucidated Nagarjuna's good system,
~ Rest victoriously on the crown of our heads. .
~ May the one predicted by the Conqueror who attained the supreme state,
~ As well as Aryadeva and the glorious Candrakirti,
~ Who most clearly elucidated Nagarjuna's good system,
~ Rest victoriously on the crown of our heads. .
~ Unable to bear misinterpretations of this system
~ Through the misconceptions of those who follow their own presuppositions,
~ Who lack the flawless eye of reasoning
~ And ignore the textual systems of the great trailblazers, .
~ I have explained the words and meaning of this text simply,
~ Commenting in a clear, unconfused and complete way
~ On the paths that mature the mind and bring about release
~ For all people with a Mahayana disposition. .
~ Since Aryadeva's thought is hard to ascertain
~ And my mind is poor, my acquired knowledge weak,
~ May my spiritual guides and deities
~ Forgive whatever errors there may be. .
~ Through any immaculate virtue created by my efforts
~ To illuminate the good Madhyamika path free from extremes,
~ May all transmigrators, bound in the prison of worldly existence,
~ Attain the peerless happiness of liberation. .
~ May I, too, in all future lives never be separated
~ From a spiritual guide of the supreme vehicle,
~ And through fully entering this path by listening, thinking and meditation,
~ May I obtain the state of an omniscient Conqueror. .
This Essence of Good Explanations, Explanation of the "Four Hundred" was written at the insistence of La-ma Nam-ka- sang-bo-wa who cherishes his precious precepts and holds the three sets of vows, and of La-ma Drak-seng-wa, exceptionally tireless in bearing the responsibility of spreading the Subduer's teaching -- they urged me again and again
106 / 117
.
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
from Upper Do-Kam with lavish and repeated flower-like offerings. It was written also at the insistence of Kun-ga Seng-ge of Dzay-tang, a great holder of the three sets of teachings who has heard the texts of sutra and tantra many times, and at the insistence of numerous other holders of the three sets of teaching.
.
It was written at Drok-ri-wo-che Gan-den-nam-bar-gyel-way-ling by the logician and fully ordained monk Dar-ma- rin-chen. This was made possible by the kind explanations received directly from the noble, venerable and holy Ren-da- wa Shon-nu-lo-dro, great follower of the Conqueror, with consummate understanding especially that all external and internal dependently arising things are like the reflection of the moon in water, and from the great omniscient one in this time of degeneration, whose prayer to holds the excellent teaching of the Conquerors is perfectly accomplished, the glorious and good foremost precious Lo-sang-drak-ba. They are the father and son, the dust beneath whose feet I have long and respectfully venerated.
.
The scribe was Rin-chen-cho-gyel, holder of the three sets of teaching and observant of his vows.
.
By virtue also of this, may the precious teaching of the Conquerors spread and flourish in all ways, and endure for a long time. )
.
L1: [Dedication]
.
May any merit resulting from this work help to keep alive the flame of the Buddha's teaching, protected and nourished by many centuries by the people of Tibet.
.
May it act as a cause for all living beings to enjoy peace and enlightenment.
107 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
L1: [Abbreviations]
.
Can. Peking edition of Candrakirti's Commentary on the "Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas", P5266, Vol. 98.
.
Can. Candrakirti's Commentary on the "Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas", No. 3865 of thesDedge Tibetan Tripitaka - bsTan hgyur preserved at the Faculty of Letters, University of Tokyo (Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1977-82). .
Bo. bod sprul bstan pa'i nyi ma, Naga King's Ornament for Thought, Explanation of the "Four Hundred on the Middle Way" (Varanasi: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Printing Press, 1987).
.
Gah. kah thog mkhan po ngag dbang dpal bzang, Sea Spray, Explanation of the "Four Hundred on the Middle Way" (Bylakuppe: Nyingmapa Monastery, 1984).
.
Gyel. rgyal tsab dar ma rin chen, Essence of Good Explanations (Varanasi: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Printing Press, 1971).
.
Ren. red mda' ba gzhon nu bio gros, Commentary to Aryadeva's "Four Hundred Verses" (Varanasi: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Printing Press, 1974).
.
Since work on this translation was carried out entirely in Dharamsala, India, most books on Madhyamika philosophy by modern western scholars were not available. It is therefore not out of a lack of respect or appreciation that no reference is made to these works. On the other hand the writing of Tibetan scholars on this subject was easily accessible and relevant passages which serve to clarify issues arising in Gyel-tsap's commentary have therefore been translated from the works of Dzong-ka-ba and others.
.
108 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
L1: [My Re? sume? s]
.
Note: In my re? sume? s I have tried to make the Middle Way, the need to combine method and wisdom together, to stay away from the four extremes, even more evident, because this is, I think, what makes any path a true Buddhist path, because only then is it IN ACCORD WITH THE REAL NON-DUAL NATURE OF EVERYTHING AS SEEN BY THE BUDDHA WHO HAS REALIZED THE PERFECT UNION OF THE TWO TRUTHS. I have also tried to make it evident that the discussion is about showing that dependent origination, and the virtuous methods based on it, are still valid if properly understood as including no inherently existing elements (cause, effect, particles, space, time, causality, production) whatsoever. I have also stressed non-duality as not two, not one; as the inseparability of opposites, as co- dependent concepts.
.
So, contrary to the usual western misunderstanding of the relation between dependent origination and emptiness, THEY ARE NOT ONE, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Non-duality means: not two, not one; or not different, but still not the same. Transcending a duality doesn't mean to reject completely the difference between the two poles, to reject the duality. The two poles are interdependent, inseparable, not different but still not the same; not two, not one. The Middle Way consist of not accepting anything as absolute, not rejecting everything as completely non-existent, useless, meaningless. TO THINK THAT DEPENDENT ORIGINATION AND EMPTINESS ARE THE SAME IS TO FALL INTO ONE OF THE FOUR EXTREMES. It is a grave mistake that inhibits one from pursuing their real nature and progressing in more subtle wisdom; it is an easy trap for intellectual fools seeking absolute certainties. Their non- duality is more subtle than this; it is beyond all conceptualization. I hope my comments will help in realizing this.
.
Other complementary re? sume? presentations taken from the book are available in the Introduction, Preface and in each chapters.
.
109 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
L2: [Re? sume? of all chapters together]
.
On the path, we need both virtuous methods (based on dependent origination) and wisdom (based on emptiness) together, the two accumulations, corresponding to the Two Inseparable Truths. Only then is it efficient because in accord with the real non-dual nature of everything.
.
PART I.