Human transcription — may contain minor errors.
A Necklace of Learned Explanations
A presentation of Grounds and Paths
by Jetsun Chokyi Gyaltshan Pal Zangpo
(translated by William McGee)
[In The Ornament of Clear Realization,] it says, “In that there is the accumulation of exalted wisdom and…” So, of the seventeen accomplishments of accumulation, why explain the accumulation of exalted wisdom in particular? There is a reason for the accumulation of exalted wisdom is difficult to realize and if realized, carries great benefits and virtues. And thus it is explained in particular. This text arose in order to explain it.
Here, we have five [sections:] 1. Setting out the individual systems of the Middle Way and Mind-Only 2. Proving the reasonableness of the Middle Way system 3. Abandoning grounds for disputing that 4. Refuting the Mind-Only system 5. The reasons for not explaining the other divisions of exalted wisdom.
1. Setting out the individual systems of the Middle Way and Mind-Only
The Mind-Only maintains that a truly established emptiness – which is the apprehended form and apprehending consciousness being empty of being different substances – is the assessed object of the Arya’s meditative equipoise. The Middle Way maintains that emptiness, which is all phenomena’s being empty of true existence, is the assessed object of that [Arya’s meditative equipoise.] For, in the rgyan snang, it says, “If asked, ‘What is the focus of this non-conceptual exalted wisdom?’ some would maintain,’it is emptiness.’ Others would maintain that it focuses on an emptiness of the very entity of all phenomena.”
2. Proving the reasonableness of the Middle Way system
Which of those two systems is logically acceptable? It is the Middle Way system that is logically acceptable, because it has correct reasons that prove it. So, what are they? The Great Commentary gives a syllogism of nature, ‘This is reasonable because whatever is consciousness focuses on [a dharma whose nature is] emptiness, the nature of all phenomena. Take for instance, that which focuses on the emptiness entity such as a dream elephant or a dream horse. This non-conceptual exalted wisdom, which is the object in question, is also a consciousness.’
The syllogism, “If the focus is not directly perceivable, that which sees its object is not a thoroughly established,’ is not a non-established syllogism. Since it exists in the concordant class, it is not an excluding [proof]. Since the nature of all phenomena existing as suchness is later refuted, it is not an indeterminate [proof] either.”
As for what that means: Some say, ‘If a thing is consciousness, its object is necessarily emptiness of true existence. For instance, like the consciousness to which a dream horse or dream elephant appear. Non-conceptual exalted wisdom is also like this.” Is this proof statement a correct reason of nature [of the type] being explicitly taught in this context? Well, [if it were, a person could object by saying:] It follows that consciousness is a correct reason of nature that proves the object of nonconceptual exalted wisdom is empty of true existence because the assertion is logically
acceptable. But that cannot be maintained because its predicate is a non-affirming negative.
Our system [would say:] “If something is a consciousness it necessarily focuses on an object that is empty of true existence. For instance, take the consciousness to which a dream horse or dream elephant appears. Non-conceptual exalted wisdom is also like this.” This proof statement is the [type of] proof statement being explicitly taught in this context. Thus, the definition of the accumulation of exalted wisdom being explicitly taught in this context is:
an exalted knower of a Mahayanist who has realized emptiness.
If that is divided, there are the three that are paths of accumulation, the one that is a path of preparation, one for each of the seven impure grounds, two each for each of the three pure grounds and three that are grounds of a Buddha, and thus there are twenty.
3. Abandoning grounds for disputing that
Someone might say, “The subject emptiness of true existence does exist truly because it is a focus. If that is accepted, it follows that the subject, a sprout’s lack of true existence, does not exist because it does not exist truly. Yet, this is an objection made by a system that does not understand the crucial points of the two [types of] negation. It follows that there is no pervasion to that because, just as killing Yajana, who killed Devadatta, does not resurrect Devadatta, refuting the true establishment of a sprout’s lack of true existence does not resurrect the sprout’s true establishment.
4. Refuting the Mind-Only system
A refutation of the Mind-Only system: [The Mind-Only system says,] “The emptiness that is apprehended and apprehender being empty of being different substances is both truly established and the final mode of being.” It follows that the subject, [the emptiness that is apprehended and apprehender being empty of being different substances], is substantially established because it is truly established. If that is accepted, it follows that valid cognition that apprehends the apprehended is either a single substance or different substances because that is what they maintain. Yet, that cannot be maintained because that [emptiness that is apprehended and apprehender being empty of being different substances] is neither a single substance nor is it different substances. If [they respond by saying,] ‘The first is not established’, then it follows that the subject is a thing because the first is not established. If that is accepted, it follows that the obscurations are not purified through meditation in which a Learner’s exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise focuses on it, because it is not a thing. If [they respond by saying,] ‘The latter is not established’, it follows that the subject is not the mode of being of the valid cognition that apprehends the apprehender because the latter is not established.
5. The reasons for not explaining the other divisions of exalted wisdom.
The reason for not explaining the other divisions such as the exalted wisdom of the dharmadhatu here is that we maintain that this brief presentation resolves the accomplishment of the accumulation of exalted wisdom, one of the seventeen accomplishments of accumulation. “As for the accumulation of the grounds, a ground extends until that ground’s thorough training [eg. thorough purification] is completed. Know that once that is completed, it is another ground.”
“What is the reason for explaining the accumulation of grounds from among the seventeen accomplishments of accumulation in particular? There are many texts that speak of it and many meanings to what is said and thus, understanding that it is difficult
to realize, it has been explained.’ And thus this text has come about to extensively explain the divisions of the accumulation of grounds, the ten thorough trainings…” There are three sub-sections: Refutation, Positing and Abandoning
A. Refutation
[1] A person says, ‘A clear realization that acts as a basis for many good qualities is the definition of ground.’ It follows that the subject, a Mahayana path of accumulation, is that definiendum [i.e. a ground] because that is its definition. If that is accepted, it follows that it is hard and solid because it is a ground. Such would necessarily be the case because it says in the Abdhidharmakosha, ‘Those which are hard, moist, warm and moving, are functional.’
[2] A person says, ‘Such a clear realization is the definition of a ground from within the two-fold division of grounds and paths’ It follows that is not logically acceptable, because if something is a ground from within the two-fold division of grounds and paths, it must be a path. If something is a clear realization, it does not need to be a path. If [we say,] ‘The latter is not established,’ [they respond by saying,] ‘it follows that it is, because there are clear realizations in the continuum of persons who have not entered a path. That follows because there are teachings of realization in such a continuum.’ But that is not necessarily the case.
[3] A person says, ‘A clear realization in the continuum of a person who has entered such a path is the definition of a ground from within the two-fold division_ of grounds and paths.’ It follows that the subject, the path of seeing’s uninterrupted path of a Mahayanist in one-pointed equipoise on the suchness of a vase, conforms to that definition because it is that definiendum. If that is accepted, it follows that it is the
basis for many good qualities because that is what they have maintained. If that is accepted, it follows that if [a person] lacks that, they necessarily lack many good qualities, because that is what has been maintained. If they accept, then it is easy. [4] A person says, ‘A clear realization of an Arya bodhisattva that is influenced by great compassion and the wisdom realizing emptiness is the definition of a bodhisattva ground.’ It follows that the subject, the Mahayana path of preparation, conforms to that definition because it is that definiendum. If [they say] it is not established, it follows that is it because it is the ground of a bodhisattva’s devoted conduct. That follows because the awakening mind in the continuum of one on the bodhisattva ground of preparation is an awakening mind of devoted conduct. In the Ornament of Sutra it was said,
‘On the grounds, that awakening mind
is held to be other than devotion, the highest pure intention and the fruitional. That [occurs once] the obscurations have been abandoned. ‘
Furthermore, it follows that is a bodhisattva ground because it is the hearer path of preparation, a Hearer ground. That follows because the presentation of the eight lower grounds is logically admissible. He says, ‘It follows that the one on the bodhisattva path of preparation is a person who abides on a ground of a bodhisattva because the bodhisattva’s path of preparation is a ground of a bodhisattva. If that is accepted, it follows that he is a bodhisattva who abides on the grounds because that is what you maintain. If that is accepted, it follows that he is an Arya bodhisattva because that is what you maintain.’ The root [assertion] does not pervade,’ because then it would
‘ In other words, just because the bodhisattva’s path of preparation is a ground of a bodhisattva does not mean the person who attains it is a person who abides on a ground of a bodhisattva
follow that an Arya Buddha is a person who has entered the Hearer path because the exalted knower that perceptually realizes selflessness of person in its continuum is a Hearer path. That pervasion is accepted.
Furthermore, ‘It follows that the Bodhisattva path of seeing is not the first bodhisattva ground because the bodhisattva path of preparation is a bodhisattva ground.’ There is no pervasion [that is, just because the bodhisattva path of preparation is a bodhisattva ground does not mean the Bodhisattva path of seeing is not the first bodhisattva ground].
[5] A person says, ‘A clear realization influenced by great compassion and the wisdom [perceptually] realizing emptiness is the definition of an arya bodhisattva ground.’ It follows that the subject, the Mahayana path of preparation that was preceded by the realization of a Hearer arhat who had perceptually realized emptiness, is the definiendum because it conforms to that definition. Both the reason and the predicate are established because there is such a subject.
[6] A person says, ‘That which is an exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise in one-pointed meditative equipoise on suchness and which acts a an actual antidote to the acquired apprehension of true existence is the definition of the first ground’s uninterrupted path.’ It follows that the subject the first ground’s uninterrupted path of the path of meditation conforms to that definition because it is that definiendum. The reason is proven below. If that is accepted, it follows that it has not abandoned the acquired apprehension of true existence because that is what you maintain. Yet that cannot be maintained because there is such a subject.
[7] A person says, ‘That is the definition of the first ground’s uninterrupted path of the path of seeing.’ It follows that the subject, an uninterrupted path of the Mahayana path of seeing that is the cause of the acquired apprehension of true existence conforms to that definition because it is that definiendum. The reason is established because that [uninterrupted path of the Mahayana path of seeing that is the cause of the acquired apprehension of true existence] exists. [It exists] because the acquired apprehension of true existence that apprehends that to be truly existent exists. If that is accepted, it follows that is the actual antidote to the acquired apprehension of true existence
because that is what you maintain. If that is accepted, It follows that is an agent that damages that because that is what you maintain. Yet that cannot be maintained because that is an agent that benefits that. That follows because that is its cause.
[8] A person says, ‘That which is an exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise in one-pointed meditative equipoise on suchness and which acts a an actual antidote to the greatest great innate apprehensions of true existence is the definition of the smallest small Mahayana path of meditation.’ It follows that the subject, the first ground’s uninterrupted path of the path of meditation conforms to that definition because it is that definiendum. The reason is established because in the Abdhidharma-samucchaya, it is said, ‘Having clearly realized truths, on the ten grounds on the path of meditation, bodhisattvas meditate on paths that are antidotes to the obscurations to knowledge.’ If that is accepted, it follows that the second ground’s uninterrupted path has abandoned that greatest great innate apprehensions of true existence because that is what you maintain. Yet that cannot be maintained because that is that’s actual antidote. That follows because it is the second ground’s uninterrupted path.
[9] A person says, ‘That which is an uninterrupted path of the first ground and which acts as an actual antidote to the greatest great innate apprehensions
of true existence that are of the same continuum as it is the definition of the first ground’s uninterrupted path of the path of meditation.’ It follows that the subject, the first ground’s uninterrupted path of the path of meditation conforms to the latter part of that definition because it is that definiendum. If that is accepted, it follows that the second ground’s uninterrupted path has abandoned the greatest great innate apprehensions of true existence that are of the same continuum as the first ground’s uninterrupted path of the path of meditation because that is what you maintain. If that is accepted, it follows that has abandoned the greatest great innate apprehensions of true existence because you maintain that and if that is so, it must be of the same continuum as that.
[10] A person says, ‘An exalted wisdom of the first ground that acts as a basis for many good qualities in the continuum of the person who has it in his continuum is the definition of the first ground Very Joyful.’ It follows that the subject, the exalted wisdom of the first ground conforms to that definition because it is that definiendum. That follows because it is that subject. If that is accepted, it follows that it is the basis for the qualities of realization on the continuum of the person who has it in his continuum because that is what you maintain. If that is accepted, it follows that it is the cause of the qualities of realization in the continuum of the one on the first ground because that is what you maintain. Yet that cannot be maintained because the two of them are simultaneous. That follows because the exalted wisdom of the first ground and the first ground are simultaneous.
[11] A person says, ‘That which is an exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise in one-pointed equipoise on emptiness and which [occurs once] the acquired apprehensions of true existence have been abandoned is the definition of the first ground’s path of release.’ It follows that the subject, an exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise of the first ground that engages in one-pointed meditative equipoise on emptiness once again after having arisen from the first ground’s path of release, conforms to that definiendum because that is its definition. The reason is established because such a thing exists. If that is accepted, it follows that it exists [at the time of] the uninterrupted path of the first ground’s path of seeing that is of the same session of equipoise as it because that is what you maintain. Yet that cannot be maintained because of the subject.
[12] A person says, ‘An exalted wisdom of the first ground in which the acquired apprehension of true existence has been abandoned is its definition.’ It follows that that the Mahayana path of seeing’s exalted wisdom of subsequent attainment is that definiendum because it fits that definition. Similarly, it follows that the subject, relative bodhicitta in the continuum of a person on the Mahayana path of seeing’s path of release is that definiendum because it fits that definition. If that is accepted, it follows that it is an exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise because that is what you maintain.
[13] A person says, ‘That which is an exalted wisdom of the first ground that is a conceptual knower2 that apprehends words and objects as suitable to be mixed after having arisen from an exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise of the first ground and which has arisen to become manifest in the continuum of the person who has it in their continuum is the definition of the exalted wisdom of subsequent attainment of the first ground.’ It follows that if something is an exalted
2 zhen rig also `determinative knower’
wisdom of subsequent attainment in the continuum of a learner it must be a conceptual consciousness because that follows on 3 from the definition. Yet that cannot be maintained because there is a common locus between it and non-conceptual consciousness. In the Path Tika it says,
‘Accomplishment occurs even in the period of subsequent attainment on the path of meditation
Dependent arisings clearly appear to be like illusions,
Free from the conceptions that apprehend the word and object as suitable to be
mixed.’
This inquiry should be done in the context of the path of seeing.
[14] A person says, ‘When moving from the first ground to the second ground, a person moves from subsequent attainment to meditative equipoise.’ That is not logically acceptable because when a person moves from the first to the second ground, he or she moves from meditative equipoise to meditative equipoise. That follows because when moving in such a way, the person moves from an uninterrupted path to a path of release. That follows because when a person moves from the tenth ground to the Buddha ground they move in such a way.
Furthermore, it follows that when moving from the first ground to the second, the person moves from an uninterrupted path to a path of release because there is an uninterrupted path of the first ground that is the produced in the final moment of the first ground. That follows because there is an uninterrupted path of the tenth ground that is the produced in the final moment of the tenth ground. If [someone says] that is not established, it follows that it is because there is an uninterrupted path at the end of the continuum [as a sentient being].
Furthermore, it follows that when moving from the first ground to the second, the person moves in such a way because the person on the first ground has abandoned the obscurations corresponding to the first ground at the same time as he moves from the first ground to the second. That follows because that person completes the first ground’s thorough training at the same time he moves to the second ground. That follows, because it says in The Great Commentary, ‘A ground lasts for as long as the dharmas that are the thorough trainings of that ground have not been completed. Know that once they have been thoroughly completed, it is another ground.’
Furthermore, it follows that there is an uninterrupted path produced in the final moment of the first ground because there is an uninterrupted path produced in the final moment of the seventh ground. That follows because there is one obscuration that the seventh grounder him or herself has not abandoned that the eight grounder him or herself has abandoned. That follows because there is one obscuration the seventh grounder has not purified yet the eighth grounder has purified. That follows because there is a positer who posits the exalted wisdom of the seventh ground to be an impure ground and the exalted wisdom of the eighth ground to be a pure ground. That follows because there is an obscuration posited as the following feature: there are stains while the seventh grounder is in the mother’s womb, yet the eight grounder is without those. For in The Sublime Continuum, it says,
The Seventh has a stained support; The feature of stains in the womb. Similar to separating from [such a] womb, is the non-conceptual
`thad pa more literally, logically admissible or coherent or acceptable
Exalted wisdom of maturation like that.
Furthermore, It follows that there is an uninterrupted path of the first ground produced in the final moment of the first ground because there is a path of release produced in the first moment of the second ground. If [someone says] that is not established, it follows that if something is a path of release of the second ground it has necessarily arisen from the uninterrupted path of the second ground that is its substantial cause because that is what you maintain. If that is accepted, it follows that if something is an uninterrupted path of the second ground, it must have a path of release of the second ground that has arisen from its having acted as the substantial cause because that is what you maintain. If that is accepted, if something is an uninterrupted path of the tenth ground, it must have a path of release of the tenth ground that has arisen from its having acted as the substantial cause because that is what you maintain. If that is accepted, it follows that the uninterrupted path at the end
of the continuum is that because it is. If that is accepted it follows that there is a path of release of the tenth ground in the continuum of an Arya Buddha because that is what you maintain.
Having acted so, he says, ‘It follows that if something is a path of release of the second ground it must have an uninterrupted path of the second ground that is its substantial cause because the first ground has such a thing.’ There is no pervasion.
Furthermore, [the person says,] ‘it follows that if something is an uninterrupted path of the first ground, the path of release of the first ground that arises from its acting as its substantial cause exists because if something is the first ground’s uninterrupted
path of the path of seeing the first ground’s path of release of the path of seeing that arises from its acting as its substantial cause exists.’ That is not necessarily so. For, it follows that if something is an uninterrupted path of the tenth ground, such a thing [the path of release of the tenth ground that arises from its acting as its substantial cause must exist. The pervasion is accepted.
Furthermore, it follows that if something is an exalted wisdom of subsequent attainment in the continuum of a bodhisattva on the path of accumulation, it must necessarily have arisen from an exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise of the bodhisattva path of accumulation that is its substantial cause because if something is a path of release of the second ground it necessarily arose from the uninterrupted path of the second ground that is its substantial cause. If that is accepted, it follows that the subject, relative bodhicitta in the continuum of a bodhisattva in the first moment of the path of accumulation and who has not previously entered lower paths, is that [something that has arisen from an exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise of the bodhisattva path of accumulation that is its substantial cause] because it is that [an exalted wisdom of subsequent attainment in the continuum of a bodhisattva on the path of accumulation]. The reason is established because that relative bodhicitta is manifest. If that is accepted, it follows that there is an exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise of the Mahayana path of accumulation in the continuum of a person who has not entered a path because that is what you maintain.
Furthermore, it follows that the first grounder abandons the obscurations corresponding to the uninterrupted path of the first ground that is produced in the final moment of the first ground at the same time he or she moves to the second ground because that [first grounder] abandons the exhaustion the faults of the first ground at the same time he moves to the second ground. It follows that it is so because that [first grounder] completes the thorough purification of the first ground at the same time he
moves to the second ground. Such is necessarily the case because the completion of the first ground’s thorough purification is posited to [occur] when the first ground’s faults have been exhausted and its qualities thoroughly complete. It follows that it is so because there is this meaning of its completion of thorough purification. Having said that, he says, `it follows that a first ground’s path of release of the path of meditation exists because a first ground’s uninterrupted path of the path of meditation exists.’
There is no pervasion. If that is accepted, it follows that first ground’s uninterrupted path of the path of meditation is not an exalted wisdom produced in the final moment of the first ground, because that is what you maintain. He says, `it follows that if something is a smallest small path of release of a Mahayana path of meditation, it must be an exalted wisdom of the second ground because there is no path of release of the path of meditation of the first ground. If that is accepted, it follows that if something is a smallest small of a Mahayana path of meditation, it must be an exalted wisdom of the second ground, because that is what you maintain.’ No pervasion.
[15] A person says, `the uninterrupted path produced in the final moment of the first ground and the smallest small of the Mahayana path of meditation are mutually inclusive. The uninterrupted path of the second ground and the middle small of the Mahayana path of meditation are mutually inclusive. The uninterrupted path of the third ground and the great small of the Mahayana path of meditation are mutually inclusive. Likewise, the uninterrupted paths of the fourth, fifth and sixth grounds are mutually inclusive with and the three cycles of the middle of the Mahayana path of meditation. The uninterrupted path of the seventh ground and the smallest great of the Mahayana path of meditation are mutually inclusive. The uninterrupted path of the eighth ground and the middle great of the Mahayana path of meditation are mutually inclusive. Within the greatest great of the Mahayana path of meditation there are two; the greatest great of the Mahayana path of meditation that is the actual antidote to the smallest small apprehensions of true existence and the greatest great of the Mahayana path of meditation that is the actual antidote to most subtle of subtle ones. The first is mutually inclusive with the uninterrupted path produced in the final moment of the ninth ground, while the second is mutually inclusive with the exalted wisdom at the end of the continuum.’
Well, then, it follows that the statement in the Path Tika, `Since [all paths] from the second moment of the first ground until being placed on the path of meditation are included within the smallest small of the path of meditation, there is no fault of the number of paths of meditation being set at nine,’ is not logically admissible. [It is not logically admissible] because the uninterrupted path [produced] in the final moment of the first ground is mutually inclusive with the smallest small of the Mahayana path of meditation.
Furthermore, [he says,] `it follows that there is an uninterrupted path of the ninth ground that is the actual antidote to the smallest small apprehensions of true existence because [the above] assertion is logically admissible. Yet that cannot be maintained because if that were so, it would necessarily be an uninterrupted path at the end of the continuum.’ The reason is dismissed. He says, `it follows that the first grounder does not complete the thorough purification of the first ground because he completes that at the same time he moves to the second ground. If that is accepted, it follows that he completes it because he attains it.’ No pervasion.
He says, `it follows that he completes it because he attains the completion of the first ground’s qualities. It follows that it is so because the tenth grounder attains the
completion of the tenth ground’s qualities. It follows that it is so because that exalted wisdom of the tenths ground is a bodhisattva’s final yoga.’ Well then, it follows that the tenth grounder abandons the exhaustion of the tenth ground faults because he attains the completion of its qualities. If that is accepted, it follows that [tenth grounder] abandons the exhaustion of the tenth ground faults because that is what you maintain. [16] A person says, ‘an exalted knower that realizes selflessness is the definition of path. An exalted knower that realizes the meaning of selflessness in a general manner is the definition of the path of accumulation. An exalted knower that has primarily arisen through meditation and realizes the meaning of selflessness in a general manner is the definition of the path of preparation. An exalted knower that newly and perceptually realizes selflessness is the definition of the path of seeing. An exalted knower that acts to gain familiarity after having already perceptually realized selflessness is the definition of the path of meditation. An exalted knower of the final perceptual realization of selflessness is the definition of the path of no-more-learning.’
It follows that the subject, relative bodhicitta in the continuum of a bodhisattva on the path of accumulation conforms to the second definition because it is that definiendum of that. Yet that cannot be maintained because it is that subject.
Furthermore, it follows that a clairvoyance that knows the mind of others in the continuum of a bodhisattva on the path of preparation who has not previously entered lower paths conforms to the third definition because it is the definiendum of that. The reason is established because such a thing exists. If that is accepted, take that subject, it follows there is a phenomenon that is realized via the medium of a generic image by it because that is what you maintain. Yet that cannot be maintained because it is clairvoyance [and clairvoyance is necessarily perceptual]. The faults apply to the others.