The Three Principal Aspects of the Path

(This transcript is of a guidance talk by His Eminence Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche on The Three Principal Aspects of the Path, via webcast on 7 August 2020, as a part of a series of guidance talks, via webcast, in July – August 2020, on spiritual practices requested by others.)

I’ve been asked to speak briefly today on The Three Principal Aspects of the Path. In general, the three principal aspects of the path are very vast subjects to talk on, so it is doubtful if speaking on them in a short duration would be beneficial or not to the listeners. Nonetheless, in accordance with the wishes of those who requested for the talk, I’ll endeavour to speak briefly on them.

The three principal aspects of the path are renunciation, enlightenment mind (bodhicitta) and the correct view. When Manjushri verbally instructed* the Great Being Jey [Tsongkhapa] on the presentation of the path for attaining Omniscience these three principal aspects of the path were specifically advised. *(Transcript note: “verbally instructed”/“instructed by mouth/speech”, zhal gdams gnaṅ wa, connotes directly instructed in person.) Since that time they came to be renowned as “the three principal aspects of the path”. Generally, from the initial [practice of] the way of devoting to Friend in Virtues (Teacher) up to the non-training Conjoined State (Union, Vajradharahood), there are many varieties and sequences of the path, related with the path of the three capable persons, for achieving Buddhahood, yet there is not any of them not related, directly or indirectly, with the three principal aspects of the path, and that do not become means for attaining and enhancing of the three. As such, if one has produced good experience on the three principal aspects of the path there would come about the sequence of the path, without incompleteness, for achieving Omniscience. Of the path, those [aspects, parts,] that certainly have to be specifically skilled at and are indispensable are renunciation, enlightenment mind and the correct view.

(Renunciation)

Of them, the first is definite emerge, renunciation, which is described as the irreversible thought aspiring liberation, very strong aspiration for liberation, by having seen samsaric sufferings and having one’s mind become repulsed at samsara. If such a thought has not arisen in one’s mental continuum there would not be arising of a qualified intention (aspiration) for achieving liberation and Omniscience. Renunciation, therefore, becomes one of the most important ones at the beginning. [Jey Tsongkhapa says:]

Without pure renunciation there is no method
To pacify the interest in the ocean-like samsara’s pleasure results.
Because of being attached to [samsaric] existence
The embodied beings are completely bound.
Therefore, in the beginning, seek renunciation.

The reason why renunciation is indispensable is that if renunciation has not arisen [in one’s continuum] there would not arise the thought wanting to be freed from [the apparent] pleasures of samsara, by seeing them as of suffering in nature. ‘The interest in samsara’s pleasure’ is present in innate mode, naturally, with the beings who have not eschewed afflictions, mental defilements. Habituated from the beginningless rebirths, and since beginningless rebirths, out of the force of ignorance one accumulates karma, and out of the force of karma one takes rebirth, and once reborn there are many varieties of feelings, of pleasant, suffering and neutral; by seeing the feelings of the pleasant and neutral types as of happiness in nature, one views samsaric prosperity attractive to one’s mind and one seeks to attain them, and in seeking them one again accumulates karma, and again there is such a seeking thought. “Because of being attached to [samsaric] existence/ The embodied beings are completely bound//”—the thought that likes samsara, that is attached and clinging at samsara makes all embodied beings not seek the means for becoming liberated from samsara, rather they get bound to it. It is advised that, therefore, it is greatly important to first seek renunciation.

How should one seek such a thought of renunciation? It is through seeing samsara—which is in the nature of suffering—as suffering, thereby achieving a thought which does not want that (samsara) and which wants to be freed from it. When Buddha taught the four truths, on true suffering Buddha said, “Know suffering”, and as regards that, even animals do see (know) suffering of suffering as suffering, yet with the suffering of change, the suffering of changeable [pleasure] and the pervasive karmic composite suffering [ordinary beings do not realise them as sufferings]; sometimes, even suffering of suffering is not seen as of suffering in nature, instead one clings at it as happiness and becomes attached to it. To really put efforts at making oneself know samsara as of suffering in nature is the main means to generate renunciation.

As such, when Buddha initially turned the Wheel of Dharma, along with true suffering Buddha specifically mentioned the eight samsaric sufferings: suffering of birth, suffering of ageing, suffering of sickness, suffering of death, suffering of parting from the pleasant, suffering of meeting with the unpleasant, suffering of not finding desired things even when sought after; after these seven sufferings were mentioned, at the end [the Buddha said], “In brief, the appropriated aggregate (the ordinary body and mind) is in the nature of suffering”, which is the pervasive karmic-composite suffering, the basis for all the sufferings listed earlier; the basis upon which all sufferings are to be experienced, and the cause by which the sufferings would be experienced is this appropriated aggregate dispensed (produced) by karma and afflictions (mental defilements), and this is of suffering in nature.

In Lamrim Chenmo and others, with the way of meditating on each of these sufferings, these sufferings are further sub-categorised into five parts each and advice given on the way of meditating on them. If one reflects well on them one would come to know the entire samsara as of suffering in its nature, that there is not any that is not suffering—wherever one is born in any samsaric place, from the worlds of celestials up to the realms of torments, in any places of happy wanderings (higher rebirths) and bad wanderings (lower rebirths), whatever excellent samsaric prosperity one enjoys, and whoever of samsaric companions one accompanies with, they would be ultimately the causes of generating sufferings, nothing that is not suffering. If there is not a thought arisen of seeing suffering as suffering there would not be the thought wanting to become freed of sufferings. If a patient does not have awareness of the sickness as sickness, rather if there is a thought, thinking, the sickness is good, the patient would not strive to be freed of the sickness.

One, therefore, needs to think on samsaric sufferings. As regards that, as I said earlier, one reflects on the eight samsaric sufferings that I listed earlier, into which are perhaps there is no suffering not included. The sufferings of birth, ageing, sickness and death, which are uniform to all wandering beings, are what we do see; how much suffering there is at birth, how much suffering there is during pregnancy.

Then, immediately from the time of birth the body’s youthfulness gradually declines, and what suffering there is of ageing. Although it is difficult to see the suffering of ageing by the young, yet when one becomes actually of advanced age and experiences the suffering of ageing it is an immense suffering. Former Kadampa teachers used to say, “It’s good that ageing comes slowly, slowly; if it were to come suddenly there’s no way one could bear it”. Since it comes slowly, slowly, it is not obvious to us. If a person, say, of eighteen or nineteen years of age, goes to bed and were to wake next morning as changed into an eighty or ninety year old person it would be easily understood that the suffering of ageing is unbearable.

Similarly, the suffering of sickness is inconceivable. If we look at our present world, irrespective of age, young or old, irrespective of wealth, rich or poor, irrespective of power, the powerful or those without, all experience a variety of suffering of sickness. When the suffering of sickness occurs, not only there is the suffering on the body by the sickness there is an inconceivable suffering to the mind related with the sickness. These days the entire world is in a fear of a pandemic, many are dying, many are ill, and those not ill are experiencing an intense feeling of anxiety that one might fall ill.

At the time of death one goes leaving behind all this life’s body, wealth, dear ones, friends, in permanent separation; that death is of suffering in its nature, therefore, is obvious. The suffering of parting from the pleasant is where one becomes parted from many things that are pleasant for oneself, those which one wishes to be together with; one has to part with some forcibly, and some which one has to part with gradually, gradually. Many are things one meets with which one does not want, which one does not like, the suffering of meeting with the unpleasant. These two sufferings—of parting from the pleasant, and meeting with the unpleasant—occur to us every day, if we observe.

The suffering of not finding the desired thing even when sought after is of very great range, especially if we look at modern people. There is a big desire—be it to become rich, or to become powerful—one keeps as life’s goal, life’s aspiration. To achieve the aspiration, even if one tries all kinds of means one remains not able to achieve it: if one were to sit for an examination, one is not able to pass the examination; if one were running a business, the business does not go successfully; likewise, if it is someone in a political power struggle, one does not gain the power; there are such many situations.

All these sufferings come about because of having acquired this contaminated appropriated aggregate (the ordinary body and mind). This way of thinking on the eight sufferings is the way of thinking on the general samsaric sufferings.

In terms of thinking on the six sufferings, they are: the suffering of the defect** of lacking certainty, the defect of lacking satisfaction, the defect of having to discard the body again and again, the defect of having to take rebirth again and again, the defect [of fluctuation in status] of becoming high and low again and again, and the defect of lacking companion. These are the six samsaric sufferings mentioned in Nagarjuna’s A Letter to a Friend. **(Transcript note: ‘defect’ refers to the defect with samsara, samsaric defects, that these six sufferings are in the aspect of defects with ones existence in samsara.)

In terms of thinking on the three sufferings, they are 1) the suffering of suffering, which is what is widely known as “suffering feeling”; 2) the suffering of change, where the pleasant feelings being impermanent change into the nature of suffering; and 3) pervasive karmic-composite suffering (suffering of the karmically composed/formed aggregate/body-mind) is, as said earlier, this situation of being under the control of karma and afflictions.

They are the ways of thinking on samsaric sufferings in general. With thinking of specific samsaric sufferings, there are the sufferings of heat, cold, being cooked and burnt, with beings in torment realms; with mentally anguished beings (preta), there are the sufferings of hunger and thirst; with animals, the sufferings of being dumb and closed-minded (ignorant); with humans, the sufferings of birth, ageing, sickness and death; with non-celestials (asura), the sufferings of jealousy, fights and so on; with celestials, the sufferings of death omens and fall [to lower realms], and so forth. There are many varieties of sufferings with each species of wandering beings. By thinking on them one has to realise that the entire samsara is of suffering in its nature, that, whichever place one is born it is a place of sufferings arising, whoever one accompanies is a companion of sufferings arising, and whatever object one enjoys it is an object of sufferings arising—these are what [my Teacher] Kyabjey Dorjechang regularly used to advise. When one sees such, then one would not have the intention to stay even for a moment in this samsara of suffering in its nature, there would arise a strong thought wanting to become freed immediately from that. When such a strong thought arises there would come about—from that thought, naturally, without the need to put other efforts—embarking on diligence at the path for attaining liberation and Omniscience. To apply means to generate renunciation, therefore, is the very first practice of the stages of the path of the three capable persons.

As for the etymological meaning of the word “definite emerge” (renunciation), the cause by which one decides or ensures to become freed from samsaric place is the thought wanting to become freed from samsara, so to be not stranded in samsara, rather to definitely emerge out of samsara, and to strive at that is called “definite emerge”.

(Enlightenment mind, bodhicitta)

If that renunciation is not retained
By a completely pure mind-generation (bodhicitta),
It will not become a cause towards the excellent happiness
Of the peerless Enlightenment, so the intelligent ones
Generate the supreme enlightenment mind.

If that renunciation is not with the presence of enlightenment mind Buddhahood cannot be achieved by renunciation alone, it does not become a complete method for that. The intelligent ones, those with intellect, should rather generate enlightenment mind. To strive at getting oneself alone to be freed from samsara, while leaving all aged mother sentient beings—who have been so greatly kind to you since beginningless rebirths—tormented by sufferings, is the thought of the immoral and the lowest. If it is a person who has generated renunciation in their continuum then certainly that renunciation must not be left at as merely a means for oneself to become freed from sufferings, instead that renunciation should see other sentient beings too tormented by sufferings, just as oneself, thereby it is important to direct that renunciation towards generating compassion, wanting to liberate all sentient beings from sufferings. If such were not there, renunciation alone would not become a cause for attaining Buddhahood.

Just as oneself is tormented by sufferings, all sentient beings are tormented by sufferings, so one must strive at liberating them all from sufferings, and unless one attains the capability to benefit them—by giving teachings suitable to their varied tendencies, thoughts, latent propensities, out of knowing them, or by other means of benefitting them—that would not be possible, that at present one does not have the capability to accomplish even one sentient being’s welfare, let alone all sentient beings’. If the welfare of all sentient beings need to be accomplished one certainly has to attain Buddhahaood, the state where all defects have ended and all excellent qualities are present, attaining of the pristine awareness of Omniscience seeing directly all phenomena; otherwise one would not be able to accomplish perfectly and completely all sentient beings’ welfare. As such, others’ welfare is kept as the goal, and as the branch for accomplishing for that one generates an irreversible intention to attain Buddhahood; the root of that intention is compassion, the great compassion, the [inherent] objectless compassion focused on all sentient beings—without bias of closeness and distantness—feeling unbearable about others’ sufferings, an intense thought of compassion. This great compassion will give rise to exalted thought (exalted or higher determination) that wants to liberate by oneself all sentient beings from sufferings. When that exalted thought looks at the means for liberating sentient beings from sufferings it becomes identified that if Buddhahood is not attained one would not be able to accomplish sentient beings’ welfare. Thus there will be the thought, the enlightenment mind (bodhicitta), aspiring to attain Buddhahood.

Such an enlightenment mind is generated through two methods: 1) equalising and exchanging self (self-cherishing) with others (cherishing others), which is the instruction of the lineage from Teacher Buddha to the Majestically Inspiring Manjushri to Protecting Guide Nagarjuna and so forth, and 2) the instructions seven cause and result, the lineage from Buddha to the Majestically Inspiring Mētreyanāth to Ārya Asanga and so forth, the two distinct methods of differing lineages for generating enlightenment mind. From the splendid Atisha and the Great Being Jey [Tsongkhapa] onwards the two instructions are blended into one, as two rivers merged into one, which is the instruction for training on enlightenment mind still extant.

In terms of putting effort at generating enlightenment mind through the instruction seven cause and result, one first meditates on equanimity, a levelled mind, without closeness and distantness, towards all sentient beings. When equanimity has arisen well one then generates the thought of 1) mother-recognition: it is that one has not recognised, otherwise there is not any sentient being who has not been one’s mother. When the thought of mother-recognition has arisen one thinks on how during the time they have been one’s mother they have nurtured with kindness, which is 2) remembering of kindness. And then to think of the need to repay the kindness of sentient beings who have been so kind thus is 3) the thought of repaying of kindness. Out of that would come about 4) lovingkindness, seeing sentient beings as delightful, and followed by 5) compassion, feeling unbearable about sentient beings tormented by sufferings, and then 6) exalted thought, thinking “I myself will liberate all sentient beings from sufferings”. These are meditated upon in stages, and thereby when exalted thought (exalted determination) has arisen one then makes a firm pledge that one would attain Buddhahood for the welfare of sentient beings, and for attaining that would train on bodhisattva practices—the six perfections, the four things/means of drawing in [sentient beings], and so forth—for as long as required, undaunted. That pledge is called 7) enlightenment mind (bodhicitta).

In terms of training on such an enlightenment mind through equalising and exchanging self with others, one has to precede by meditating on equanimity, that all sentient beings are not to be objects of [the bias of] closeness and distantness, that the present attitude from oneself towards some as close and some as distant and some as to be ignored is because of mistaken thought, whereas in actuality, they need to be viewed as equal, it is not right to be discriminative to consider as close and distant. That is called equanimity, thinking as equal.

Thereafter, one thinks through many ways the faults of self-cherishing thought, that till now to be remaining in samsara, not freed from it, is because of self-cherishing thought. Due to self-cherishing one categorises beings into “myself” and “others”, which in turn gives rise to the thoughts of attachment and hatred, by which one accumulates bad karmas. Of sufferings of samsara, there is not any that has not been caused by self-cherishing. Subsequent to that, one thinks through many ways the excellent qualities of cherishing others. Even with all happiness in samsara, they are all which have come from others’ kindness and from cherishing others, considering others dear. Thereafter, one meditates on equalising self with others, that whoever it be, all sentient beings do not want suffering, but do want happiness, and all are equal in that; also, in terms of having the ability to remove sufferings and in having the ability to achieve happiness all are equal; likewise, all are equal in having the rights to remove sufferings and to achieve happiness. One thus trains in giving rise to the thought of equalising self with others. One then exchanges self with others, and the meaning of the phrase is not to put one in others’ spot and to put others in one’s spot, rather that so far in the past one has been cherishing oneself, which now needs to be replaced by cherishing others, and so far in the past one has been ignoring others, and now in place of ignoring others one has to ignore oneself, one’s self-interests.

Out of that would arise compassion, which in turn would give rise to exalted thought, and that in turn enlightenment mind. To meditate thus in stages is called “training the mind through equalising and exchanging self with others”. Through reliance on one’s Teacher’s instructions and through study into the major texts one needs to know well how to attain these [stages of the mind] and if one were able to train well enlightenment mind is something we can hope to be certainly arising in our mental continuum. Particularly, for us of The Land of Snows, because of our karmic and prayer connection with Ārya Avalokiteśvara (Phagpa Chenrezigwangchuk)—and since Avalokiteśvara is the physical manifestation, with the aspect of face and hands, of the great compassion Mind of all Buddhas—if we pray to Ārya Avalokiteśvara and practise the instructions on training on enlightenment mind there certainly would be the hope for arising of enlightenment mind.

(The correct view)

After renunciation and enlightenment mind have arisen in one’s mental continuum the thought that acts as the antidote against the two obscurations—the afflictive obscurations and obscuratiosn to Omniscience—the thought that actually takes one to Buddhahood, is the correct view, the third of the three principal aspects of the path.

If one does not have the wisdom realizing the mode of existence,
One will not be able to uproot the origin of this samsaric existence,
No matter one may familiarise with renunciation
And enlightenment mind; so strive at realizing dependent arising.

However much one may have perfected in the experiences of renunciation and enlightenment mind, the actual things that need to be eschewed are the afflictive obscurations and the obscurations to Omniscience. These two have their roots in the [grasping] view on transitory collections, or ego-grasping ignorance, the initial ignorance of the twelve dependent links. This initial ignorance is ignorant of the mode of existence of all phenomena. The mode of existence of all phenomena means how anything, of oneself and others, exist; the way at present things appear to us and we grasp at them do not exist in actuality, that we grasp at something that is non-existent in actuality, so that is called “not knowing the mode of existence”, ignorant of the mode of existence. When the mode of existence of all phenomena is not known that is called, “ignorance, the not-knowing”. Due to that ignorance one divides beings into “myself” and “others”, which give rise to attachment and hatred, and they in turn give arise to all other afflictions (defilements of the mind), thus that is how the root cause and factors for circling in samsara come from. To be freed from the fears of samsara and [nirvanic] peace, and to remove the afflictive obscurations and obscurations to Omniscience the actual direct antidote is the limitless enhancing of the mind’s ability that directly contradicts with the manner of grasping by ignorance; it has to come from wisdom realizing the mode of existence.

As regards how to generate in one’s mental continuum that wisdom realizing the mode of existence, Jey Rinpoche instructs, “strive at realizing dependent arising”. There is a great reason for saying, “strive at realizing dependent arising”, and not in saying, strive at realizing emptiness. It is important to strive at knowing the mode of existence of phenomena through having meditatively familiarised with the details (presentations) of dependent arising. If the mode of existence is established through the reasoning of dependent arising both extremes—the extreme of permanence and the extreme of nihilism—would be removed. That single reasoning has the ability to remove both extremes, and so it is said, “dependent arising, the kind of reasoning”.

Regarding how one should strive at the means for realizing the mode of existence, it is by identifying the object to be negated, that which is to be negated. When the object to be negated is not identified it is so difficult to have emptiness [established] by negation of that object to be negated, it would become either too broad, or too narrow [a negation], thereby there would be the dangers of falling into the extreme of permanence and the extreme of nihilism. When searching for the view, identifying the object to negate is the most difficult, because, due to having been so habituated from beginningless rebirths to the grasping at I, oneself, and at phenomena other than self, by the innate ego-grasping, it is so difficult to identify; the way it grasps at is, for example, with I, oneself, when someone calls you by your name, or when others praise you, or when others defame you, one thinks that something is being said about you, the I is seen as if not dependent on anything, not reliant on anything, as if it is alone, self-standing from its side. This is knowable when looked at by experience. Nevertheless, the way it appears and the way it is grasped at is very difficult to identify. How the innate ego-grasping grasps at I, how it grasps at mine—one’s Dharma robe, bowl, and so on. When saying, “My Dharma robe”, “My bowl”, “My text”, it is assumed that the I that owns as “my” is surely existent by its entity; and, when thinking of “my this [thing]”, things of ‘mine/my’ category, are assumed as surely existent self-standing, self-sufficiently, not knowing they are merely in the entity of dependent-arising, a collection—which are the bases for imputation—have been imputed so by the mind, the one doing the imputing.

When one is able to clearly identify the object of negation such an I that is apparently existent self-sufficiently is seen as not existent in that manner: when the meaning/the object imputed, the self-sufficiently existent I, is searched for, and when the things grasped at as ‘mine/my’ by the I are search for—where is that I, alone and not dependent on anything? Is it upon the form aggregate, is it upon the feeling aggregate, is it upon the karmic formation aggregate, consciousness aggregate?; when searched upon each—there would be with all only, “my body”, “my feeling”, “my recognition” and so on, there would not be found to say “this is I”. After having searched in all of them there should be a lone I, of separate entity from the aggregates, but that could not be found. Likewise, say, with “my text”, when searched in each of its particles, each of its parts, each of its pages, right, left, in all its bases of imputation, where it is to say, “this is text”, existent self-sufficiently, it cannot be found. When it is not found, does it mean it is non-existent? It is not non-existent, it can function as cause-effect dependent arising [phenomenon], and how that is so is, it is through being existent as dependent-related-arising: a thing to be imputed as gathered as a collection, and upon that the mind which imputes, labels, imputes by conceptual thought that it is so. When the thought does the imputing upon the bases of imputation—‘this is a pot’, ‘this is a cloth’, ‘this is a text’—a thing exists, able to do its function. The way it has come to exist is merely as a dependent-related-arising [phenomenon], existent either as a dependent arising of cause and effect, or as a dependent arising of the bases of imputation and that which imputes, that it is existence by relative to one another, by dependence on one another, that there is not existence by its entity. When this becomes clearly identified it is what is described as “realizing the subtle pivot of dependent arising” or “realizing the mode of existence of phenomena”.

Such a mode of existence of phenomena is hidden, not obvious, so it has to be established by the power of the reasoning of actuality, and by applying the reasoning when it is realized that there is no existence by one’s entity, that when one realizes sheer emptiness, then what is the mode of existence? The mode of existence is as merely imputed by conceptual thought, that although things do not exist from their side, yet when a basis of imputation is imputed by a conceptual thought there is the ability to function as such. When such is realized it is seeing of the nature of dependent arising. When such seeing of the nature of dependent arising is again and again meditatively familiarized with there would arise the wisdom-arisen-from-meditative-familiarization realizing that in the manner of meaning-generality. And when, gradually, that wisdom arisen from meditative familiarization realizing emptiness in the manner of meaning-generality becomes the wisdom arisen from meditative familiarization, of direct realization, then one path—of direct antidote against afflictions—has arisen in one’s mental continuum. Enhancing higher and higher of such a path would abandon [the obscurations] to be eschewed by the path of seeing, and later when arriving at eschewing by the path of meditation, from that of by the path of seeing, the imprints of the obscurations to Omniscience are eschewed/removed in stages, thereby one is able to attain Buddhahood.

As such, since for attaining Buddhahood renunciation, enlightenment mind and the correct view are the principal aspects of the path, that they are indispensable, that all other paths are inclusive to them as their branches, directly or indirectly, the three principal aspects of the path were the instructions given.

*******

(The video recording, in Tibetan, of this guidance talk can be viewed at this link:)

https://www.facebook.com/Samdhongrinpoche%20/videos/1241662609520834/