Ngag-wang-pal-dan’s commentary clarifies the problems associated with not following each of these dictums at the appropriate time: 1. When understanding—that is, hearing—all doctrines, if one takes as true all that is explained and does not analyze the meaning of words, one will not know how to distinguish the correct from the quasi. Therefore, in order not to lose out at that time, the first reliance [rely on doctrine, but do not rely on persons] is posited. 2. When holding all doctrines without forgetting, if one is intent only on words, one will fall from holding the meaning without forgetting it. Therefore, in order not to lose out at that time, the second reliance [rely on meaning, but do not rely on words] is posited. 3. When closely investigating meaning—at the time of [states] arisen from thinking doing proper mental application—if one merely takes conventionalities to mind, one will not gain arisen from thinking with regard to the ultimate. Therefore, in order not to lose out at that time, the third [rely on definitive meaning, but do not rely on meaning] is posited. 4. When achieving doctrine—the path of liberation—in with doctrine, if one is satisfied with mere conceptual consciousnesses arisen from hearing, thinking, and one will not gain uncontaminated pristine wisdom in which clear perception of the meaning of reality has reached completion. Therefore, in order not to lose out at that time, the fourth reliance [rely on pristine wisdom, but not on is posited. Jam-yang-shay-pa’s Indian source, Asaṅga’s Grounds of Yogic Practice, is cryptic in its brevity: Concerning this, in brief, because of losing out and not losing out at four times—when understanding all doctrines, when holding all doctrines, when closely investigating or contemplating the of all doctrines, and when achieving all doctrines in with doctrine—four [types of] persons are presented, whereby the four reliances are presented. Four to be relied on. About what is to be relied upon, the four reliances are associated with four factors: 1. scriptures, that is, Buddha’s high sayings;
• with respect to meanings there are two, the interpretable and the definitive • and with respect to definitive meanings one should not rely on consciousness but should rely on pristine wisdom. དེ་སྐད་དུ་འདི་ཉིད་ལས། །ཞེས་པ་དང་། and Asaṅga’s Grounds of Bodhisattvas (see Interpretable and Definitive, 82) says: From these four reliances, in brief, four validities themselves are indicated: (1) the meanings of the teachings, (2) reasonings, (3) teachers, and (4) pristine wisdoms of realization arisen from རིགས་པ་དང་། སྟོན་པ་དང་། 4. Someone says: It follows that “words” in the phrase “do not rely on the words” are not posited as the words of the Teacher because “meaning” in the phrase “rely on the meaning” is not the mode of subsistence, The reason [which is that “meaning” in the phrase “rely on meaning” is not the mode of subsistence, emptiness] is established because among those [meanings in the phrase “rely on meaning”] there are those as
6. Someone says: It follows that whatever is a consciousness in “do not rely on consciousness” necessarily has not realized emptiness because with respect to whatever is that [consciousness in “do not rely on it is necessarily not reasonable to assert the mode of in accordance with perception by it because a meaning of “do not rely on consciousness” exists. དེ་ལ་ཁ་ཅིག Our response: [That a meaning of “do not rely on consciousness” exists] does not entail [that with respect to whatever is a consciousness in “do not rely on consciousness,” it is necessarily not reasonable to assert the mode of subsistence in accordance with perception by it] because not asserting as the final mode of subsistence in accordance with the appearance to an inferential consciousness realizing emptiness is the meaning [of “do not rely on consciousness”] because if it were otherwise, there would be no proliferations of dualistic appearance in the perspective of the by an inference realizing emptiness.
Ngag-wang-pal-dan’s Annotations, ha: Since [the particle] las [in de tsam las mchog tu mi ’dzin] is a lexical error, it should read “nonapprehension of just merely that as supreme” (de tsam la mchog tu mi ’dzin). and the Teachings of Akṣhayamati Sūtra (see Interpretable and Definitive, 101) says: In brief, these teachings of whatsoever 84,000 piles of doctrine are called “letters.” That meaning which is the unlanguaged, nonilluminable, and inexpressible of all sentient beings is called “meaning.” This is “rely on meaning, but do not rely on letters.” །ཞེས་དང་། Ngag-wang-pal-dan’s Annotations, a: [I] wonder—according to the citation of the Teachings of Sūtra in Jam-yang-shay-pa’s Decisive Analysis of the Interpretable and the Definitive (see Interpretable and Definitive, 101), which states: “Letters” teach the collections of Bodhisattva qualities from initial mind-generation through to the essence of enlightenments. “Meaning” is an all-knowing pristine manifestly completely purified by wisdom endowed with a single moment of mind. In brief, these teachings of whatsoever 84,000 piles of doctrine are called “letters.” That