A Brief Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment (菩提道次第略論)

Translator's Preface to The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment

Buddhism has gradually spread across the world, especially throughout Asia, where it has reached nearly every corner. In countries such as China, North and South Korea, Japan, Siam, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Malaysia, and India, Buddhists make up about two-thirds of the total population. Yet if we seek a place where the teachings of Buddhism have been preserved with unique integrity—whether in scholarship, practice, development, or institutional structure—Tibet stands above all.

Tibetan Buddhism traces its origins to the 6th century, corresponding to China’s glorious Tang dynasty—a peak of Han Chinese civilization. This was over 200 years after the great translator Kumarajiva had rendered Buddhist scriptures into Chinese. Buddhism was introduced to Tibet when King Songtsen Gampo married Princess Wencheng, bringing the seeds of Dharma to the region. Chronologically, Tibetan Buddhism emerged around the same time as Japanese Buddhism (593–628 CE), but the two developed very differently. In Japan, Buddhism relied entirely on Chinese translations of scriptures and remained largely bound by early Indian Buddhist frameworks for centuries. This made Japanese Buddhism conservative in both form and thought, with little new development.

Tibetan Buddhism, however, had a direct lineage from India. If we consider late Indian Buddhism as beginning with Vasubandhu and continuing until Buddhism’s decline in India, that period spans about 800 years. During this time, the scholarly traditions of Nalanda and Vikramashila monasteries evolved significantly, becoming quite different from earlier Buddhism. When the great Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang studied in India, he encountered no special Tantric works by the great masters Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, who founded the Madhyamaka and Yogacara schools. But by the time Buddhism began entering Tibet, Tantric teachings had already become inseparable from Madhyamaka and Yogacara philosophy. The senior monks of Nalanda openly taught Tantric studies as a core subject (as recorded in Taranatha’s History of Buddhism). Today, the Tibetan Tengyur collection contains many Tantric treatises attributed to Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. Moreover, great works of late Indian Buddhism—such as Chandrakirti’s commentaries on Madhyamaka, Haribhadra and Buddhajnanapada’s works on the Perfection of Wisdom, Dharmakirti’s treatises on logic, Shantideva’s Bodhicharyavatara, and Gunaprabha’s works on monastic discipline—were all composed during this late period and transmitted to Tibet before Buddhism declined in India.

Furthermore, Tibet produced a succession of great masters. Among them were Padmasambhava, founder of the Nyingma school; Atisha, founder of the Kadam tradition; Konchok Jeb, founder of the Sakya school; Marpa and Milarepa, founders of the Kagyu lineage; and Mikyö Dorje and Taranatha, important figures in the Jonang tradition. All these masters combined profound realization with vast learning, mastered both Sanskrit and Tibetan, explored the deepest meanings of the teachings, and made original contributions while integrating various traditions. They created a unique style in Buddhism. Among these great figures, Je Tsongkhapa, founder of the Gelug school, stands out as an especially exceptional later master.

An analysis of why the teachings of Master Tsongkhapa's school had such a profound influence in Tibet reveals four main reasons:

1. Profound and precise theories with correct understanding. 2. Strong emphasis on practical application. 3. Complete and systematic organization. 4. A clear, step-by-step structure for both ordinary beings and sages, based on the order of Sutra and Tantra.

Since the time of Nalanda Monastery, this school has been the most capable of thoroughly mastering the Three Baskets of teachings.

Because the highest goal of studying Buddhism is to attain realization, how can one practice or achieve realization without correct understanding? Throughout history, all great masters have paid close attention to the degree of understanding of emptiness. In early Tibet, practitioners of esoteric Buddhism, similar to Chan Buddhists in China, often disregarded scriptural teachings. They focused only on external phenomena such as spiritual powers related to energy channels, winds, and drops, emphasizing meditative absorption while neglecting wisdom. They did not cultivate great compassion or the mind of enlightenment according to a graded path—a situation much like that of today's Tantric practitioners.

(Please note! Chinese Chan is a path of sudden transcendence, but that depends on the capacity of beings!)

It was only with Master Tsongkhapa that a clear and definitive instruction on the correct view was established. This correct view is the understanding of the principle of dependent origination: all phenomena arise from causes and conditions, existing as illusions. When conditions meet, things arise; when conditions disperse, things cease. We do not deny existence, nor do we cling to nonexistence. Since all phenomena fundamentally lack intrinsic reality, how can we cling to them as real? Yet, since phenomena exist conventionally through names and designations, how can we deny them? The cycle of birth and death (samsara) arises from clinging to illusory phenomena as real, leading to endless suffering. Even nirvana is established based on the elimination of defilements—how could we fall into attachment to it as a real entity?

Buddhist practitioners who do not fully understand this often believe that all worldly phenomena are nothing, and only nirvana is real. This is still a form of extreme views: the extremes of nihilism (denial) and eternalism (affirmation). Nihilism is the view of denying existence. For example, the reflection of a person in a mirror has no inherent substance, but due to the combination of a clear mirror, space, light, and the person themselves, the reflection naturally appears and can even function. We must acknowledge its illusory, conventional existence. It cannot be completely nonexistent, because total denial would negate the great principles of karmic cause and effect and the cycle of rebirth.

Eternalism is the view of clinging to existence. For instance, the self and phenomena are inherently empty of independent nature. However, due to the influence of beginningless habitual ignorance, beings develop attachment to self and to phenomena. Attachment to self obstructs nirvana; attachment to phenomena obstructs great enlightenment.

If one can transcend these extremes of nihilism and eternalism, one will clearly understand what conventional truth and ultimate truth are, and what their relationship is: are they one or different? To understand dependent origination is to understand emptiness. As Nagarjuna said: "Whatever arises from causes and conditions, I declare it to be emptiness." This emptiness means not only that because things are dependent, they are empty, but also that because they are empty, they can arise dependently. Additionally, it can be understood as the original purity of nature.

If, on the other hand, one develops attachment to emptiness itself—grasping it as a real entity of emptiness—or develops a denial of emptiness—seeing it as absolute nothingness—then one has strayed far from the Middle Way. As the "Mulamadhyamakakarika" says: "If one clings to emptiness, such a person is incorrigible."

In short, the state that is beyond words and beyond conceptual thought cannot be understood or grasped by the ordinary mind. Therefore, the root of samsara is primarily the attachment to self, which arises from the view of self. If one can destroy the view of self and cut off attachment to self, one can abide forever in a state of luminosity, emptiness, and freedom from conceptual attachment.

**Concerning the method for cultivating the correct view of the Middle Way**, this treatise also provides detailed explanations. First, by using the four principles or the seven modes of analysis, one examines the self (ātman) to which sentient beings have clung since beginningless time, thereby realizing the self’s emptiness. Then, using the four principles or the principle of refuting the “four types of arising,” one examines the ultimate dharmas to which sentient beings have clung since beginningless time, thereby realizing the emptiness of all phenomena.

**The four principles are as follows:** 1. Recognize the self that is to be refuted. 2. Determine whether the self and the five aggregates are one and the same, or different—only these two possibilities exist. 3. Recognize the inconsistency of the self and the five aggregates being identical. 4. Recognize the inconsistency of the self and the five aggregates being entirely separate.

**The seven modes of analysis are:** one—the self and the five aggregates are identical; different—the self and the five aggregates are distinct; the self is supported by the five aggregates; the five aggregates are supported by the self; the self possesses the five aggregates; the collection of the five aggregates forms the self; and the shape or form of the aggregated five aggregates constitutes the self.

**The four types of arising are:** arising from itself, arising from others, arising from both, and arising from no cause.

Using the four principles to refute the inherent existence of ultimate dharmas proceeds as follows: First, recognize the ultimate dharma being clung to and its constituent parts. Then, using the self and the five aggregates as examples, apply the four principles used to refute the self’s inherent existence in the same way. Once one has realized the emptiness of the self and ultimate dharmas that have been erroneously clung to since beginningless time, one then examines in detail the principle of dependent origination. From this, one understands that although all phenomena lack intrinsic nature, there still exist dependent origination and cause-effect relationships.

If one feels that dependent origination—cause and effect—and emptiness are two separate things, then one has not yet truly understood the profound meaning of the Middle Way. But if, by seeing the cause-effect relationships and dependent origination of all phenomena, one dispels inner clinging and directly realizes that all phenomena are empty and devoid of inherent nature, then one has attained the correct view of the Middle Way.

**This correct view has a special function:** it is not merely that emptiness eliminates clinging to permanence—the very power of seeing dependent origination also eliminates the extreme of permanence. Nor is it merely that seeing existence eliminates clinging to annihilation—the very power of seeing emptiness (the emptiness of inherent nature) also eliminates the extreme of annihilation. Such is the unique function of the Middle Way’s correct view.

Master Tsongkhapa was born in 1357 CE in Qinghai, China. At age sixteen, he entered Tibet to study under many renowned masters and learn the scriptures. After age twenty-two, he practiced in solitary retreat and achieved great realization. At thirty-one, he wrote *The Golden Garland of Excellence*, a commentary on the *Ornament of Clear Realization*. From then on, he taught widely and guided many, continuing until his passing at sixty-three.

Throughout his life, he delivered hundreds of teachings, wrote hundreds of texts, and established hundreds of monasteries. The three great monasteries of Tibet were founded by him. At age forty-six, he composed *The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment*, but feeling it was too voluminous to convey the essence, he later wrote *The Condensed Stages of the Path* at age fifty-nine. This text is his final, definitive work, and its authority is beyond doubt.