Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 89-minute teaching, HH the Dalai Lama guides senior students through stanzas 28–35 of the 37 Practices of a Bodhisattva, covering the perfections of diligence, concentration, and wisdom, and practical ethical disciplines including self-examination, guarding speech, and swift antidote application against mental afflictions. He then addresses a core philosophical question: how the nominally designated self exists in Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika view, using the example of his own person to illustrate how the conventional “Dalai Lama” arises as mere imputation on the basis of the five aggregates—neither the aggregates themselves nor a separate entity—and guides practitioners to meditate on emptiness of inherent existence. He conducts question-and-answer sessions on the three scopes of practice and instructs students to reflect on renunciation, liberation, and the swift elimination of obscurations before their minds mature into realization.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 37 PB 110918 000 – KR.mp3
UUID: 9fb5c412-c648-49bf-816d-a3e675daa55a
Teacher: HH Dalai Lama
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~3,712
And therefore, generating the motivation to attain the state of full enlightenment for the state for the sake of all sentient beings practicing the practices of the beings of three scopes. Please listen to these teachings. And as Je Tsongkhapa says, bless me therefore to enter the Vajrayāna after having generated within my mind stream the shared or the common path. The shared path here refers to the three principles of the path which are definite emergence, bodhicitta, and the correct view, the view of emptiness. Ideally, one would generate these within this very life, but if that is not possible, at least one must generate some type of understanding of them.
If we have the three principles of the path, then we are able to receive authentically initiations such as the initiations of Kriyā, Caryā, Yoga and Anuttara Yoga Tantra. On the other hand, if we have not generated these three principles of the path within our mind stream, then even though we attend initiation, it is almost certain we will not receive it. In the same way as when a house is being built initially before erecting the walls, one must erect the foundation. Therefore, to practice tantra authentically, one needs the three principles of the path. Now, is this called the common or the shared path?
It is called the common or the shared path because it is a path which has to be practiced both from the standpoint of tantra and from the standpoint of sūtra. It is unsuitable not to practice it from either standpoint. Shortly the initiation of Yamāntaka. And therefore, there is great import in Geshe-la’s explaining to us the three principles of the path. So the section of the shared path related to renunciation is that of the beings of small and scope.
And on this basis, eventually, one is able to enter the practice of the being of great scope and to generate bodhicitta. The last time we focused on the cycle of teachings of being of small scope and Geshe-la asked questions regarding them. This time, we will address the cycle of teachings of the beings of middling scope and the next time in question and answers that of the being of great scope. And therefore renunciation or definite emergence is connected first and foremost to the cycle of practices of the being of middling scope. All the training in conventional bodhicitta is connected with cycle of teachings of the being of great scope.
At present, Geshe-la is going to explain to the best of his capacities the correct view of emptiness. This is not easy, but he will do his best And from our side, if we put effort, we may gain some understanding. And here, generally speaking, the view which is referred to is that view of no self in keeping with the Prāsaṇgika school. Now generally speaking, all of the the schools of tenets from the Vaibhāṣika school all the way up to the Svatāntrika Mādhyamika schools, consider that the self which is referred to is a self of persons. This self of persons is rejected by these schools.
These schools therefore consider that as Candrakīrti says in his auto commentary on the Madhyamakāvatāra, a self which travels from life to life that is not apart from a mere imputation. Now even though this quote is formulated from the standpoint of the Prāsaṇgika school, nonetheless, it is broadly speaking endorsed by the Svatāntrika schools and beneath regarding the self of persons. The difference between the Buddhist viewpoint and the non-Buddhist schools which accept the existence of past and future lives is as follows. The non-Buddhist schools accepting the existence of past and future lives consider that there is something apart from the aggregates which travels from life to life, and which is both the experiencer of experience and the accumulator of karma. And that which travels from life to life experiences experiences and accumulates karma is a self which is different from the aggregates.
The Buddhist schools, on the other hand, consider that there is no such self different from the aggregates traveling from life to life. So, His Holiness the Dalai Lama is always very careful when he provides these explanations. Geshe-la will be too, and he is gonna try to give concise explanations so the translator can give a precise translations. Then all of the schools involved in this debate are schools which accept the existence of past and future lives. This debate makes sense only in such a context and materialists, in other words, could not engage in such a debate.
All of the schools of tenets from the downwards within the Buddhist schools of tenets refute the existence of a self which is an experiencer of experiences and an accumulator of karma separate from the aggregates. They all assert the existence of such a self as a mere imputation on the basis of the basis of imputation, which is the aggregates. From Sautrāntika downwards, asserts that that nominal self which is to be posited as the accumulator of karma and the experience of experiences, and which travels from life to life, is none other than the mental consciousness. This is the position which is broadly speaking shared by the schools of tenets from Svatāntrika Mādhyamika downwards. That the mental consciousness, which is a mere normal imputation, is posited as the person.
This position of all of the schools of tenets from Svatāntrika Mādhyamika downwards, that the experiencer of experiences and the accumulator of karma, which travels from life to life, is none other than that mere mere normally imputed mental consciousness is the position which is refuted by the highest school of tenets, the Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika School, in keeping with Candrakīrti’s autocommentary on his Madhyamakāvatāra, Engaging in the Middle Way, in which he says, the it is the mere nominal imputation on the basis of imputation of the aggregates, which is the experiencer and the accumulator. Then here, how one posits the nominally designated self, the nominally designated self, as opposed to that self which is non existent, is a matter of one’s own personal position. Geshe-la’s personal position in the matter is rooted in some things His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said. We all have experienced seeing his holiness and hearing his teachings. Now when we see his holiness and hear his teachings, that mind which relying on the experience of seeing his holiness thinks this is his holiness.
In other words, that conception which thinks this is his holiness, and which thinks that the being which is walking, lying, sleeping, and resting before traditional activities is his holiness, is actually the nominally designated self to which we are referring. Then Geshe-la suspects that when we think of the Prāsaṇgika view, we actually feel that it is the aggregates which are the basis of imputation of the Dalai Lama, which are the Dalai Lama. This is wrong. Then the question is, what is this conventionally existing Dalai Lama? It is that nominal imputation on the basis of the consciousness perceiving the Dalai Lama through the five aggregates, which can be perceived as permanent, which is to be understood as the conventionally existing Dalai Lama.
There are many quotes regarding this from Candrakīrti’s auto commentary and in Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra Geshe la would not quote here. If we analyze the process, we can see that when we actually see his holiness, while we think we are seeing the aggregates of his holiness, we are not seeing the aggregates of his holiness. We are seeing the mere shape of his holiness, and we are hearing the name his holiness. Then to the mind which sees a mere shape and hears a sound indicating the name of his holiness, dawns the conception this is his holiness. This is an imputation, a factor of imputation on the basis of the aggregates which are actually not perceived.
This is the conventional mode of existence of his holiness. And this is what will be said on the topic. Please think about it carefully. If you have questions later on, ask them, and spend one or two days before Sunday reflecting on this. And therefore, to understand clearly the view of all of the Buddhist schools downwards from the Svatāntrika Mādhyamika, one must understand that they reject the existence of a self of persons.
To understand clearly what is a self of persons, one must be able to posit clearly the difference between a self of persons which is non existent on the one hand and a nominally designated or nominally designated self of persons which is existed, one must understand as Geshe explained that the schools of tenets from Svatāntrika Mādhyamika downwards all assert that this nominally designated conventionally existing self is none other than the mental consciousness, which Geshe la referred to. While the Prāsaṇgika School, which is the ultimate school of tenets, asserts that this is not the case, and that it is a mere nominal and conceptual designation on the basis of the aggregates, are its basis of designation. And therefore, we should reflect carefully on who actually experiences the maturation of experiences, who accumulates karma, and on this basis, increase our understanding of emptiness as much as can. And we have now reached stanza 28 in the text which is being presented, the 37 practices of a bodhisattva. So in this context, what was explained during the previous teachings was that to attain a higher rebirth which is indispensable for reaching either liberation or full enlightenment since it is very difficult to reach either of these through a lower rebirth.
We need the causes for such a higher rebirth, and the causes are first foremost the practice of generosity, which was explained. Then on this basis, the practice of ethics, which is the main cause as is taught for a rebirth in the higher realms. And in addition, the practice of forbearance or patience, which enables one to have a good retinue, a good entourage, and a pleasing physical form. And at present, presenting the perfection of enthusiasm, in stanza 28, if even the Shravakas and Pratyekabuddha who work only for their own gain are seen to exert themselves as if extinguishing burning fires on their heads, it is a practice of Bodhisattvas in order to benefit all beings undertake diligence. Enthusiasm is better.
The source of all good qualities. Here, the meaning of this stanza is that if Shravakas and Pratyekabuddha who are only working for them selves manifest diligence or manifest enthusiasm, how much more so should bodhisattvas which are working for the sake of every single sentient being? And stanza 29 is dedicated to training in the perfection of concentration. It is a practice of Bodhisattvas to cultivate the concentration which surpasses the four formless stages through having realized that vipaśyanā possessed with excellent calm abiding, completely destroys the obscurations. So, it is here the goal of the bodhisattvas to cultivate true insight, true vipaśyanā, which necessitates complete calm abiding, complete śamatha.
The insight which is referred to here is a meditation on emptiness. If śamatha or calm abiding alone cultivated without cultivating insight, then this acts as a cause for a rebirth in the form or the formless realms, which is precisely that which is to be avoided. Since the goal of the Bodhisattva is to eliminate all afflictions, and that this is only possible through the realization of emptiness. And the final sixth perfection, the perfection of wisdom is explained in stanza 30. There’s a practice of Bodhisattvas to cultivate the wisdom that possesses method and does not differentiate the three spheres, subject, object, and action.
For if wisdom is lacking, one will be unable to achieve complete Buddhahood by means of the five other perfections. Therefore it is necessary to cultivate that wisdom which realizes emptiness, since without it, the five other previously explained perfections cannot lead to full enlightenment. Therefore, when engaging, for instance, in the perfection of giving or generosity, one must, while engaging in this perfection, meditate on the fact that the giver, the gift, and the act of giving lack inherent existence. And stanza 31 is easy to understand with merely the external appearance of a Dharma practitioner. If one doesn’t examine one’s own faults, it is possible to act contradictory to the Dharma.
Therefore, it is a practice of Bodhisattvas continually to examine their own mistakes and to abandon them. The Dharma is taught for us to tame our own minds, to examine our own minds. It is not taught for us to hector others. And therefore, the practice of Bodhisattvas is continually to examine their own minds. Otherwise, if one merely wears the robes of a monk and within one’s mind is filled with desire, anger, and ignorance, there would have been no benefit.
And stanza 32 reads as follows, if a bodhisattva due to the power of obscuration were to describe the thoughts of other bodhisattvas, he himself would degenerate. Therefore, not speaking of the thoughts of others who abide in the Mahāyāna is the practice of bodhisattvas. Bodhisattvas therefore do not criticize others under the power of obscuration. If they did, they themselves would degenerate. The following stanza, stanza 33, refers mainly to those who are ordained as calling back and forth in order to gain wealth and honour to generate the actions of listening, thinking, and meditating, it is a practice of Bodhisattvas to abandon attachment to the households of family, friends, and sponsors.
So here, if out of a desire for money and donations, one befriends some and doesn’t befriend others, then such practice leads to the degeneration of the activities of hearing, thinking, and meditating. This is something which Bodhisattvas who are ordained abandon. Stanza 34, due to harsh words, the minds of others are disturbed and the character of Bodhisattvas degenerate. Therefore, it is the practice of Bodhisattvas to abandon harsh words unpleasant to others. Here, harsh words are words which cause anger in another, which disturb another person’s mind, such as, for instance, insulting a blind person by saying you are blind.
Such words disturbing the minds of another are abandoned by Bodhisattvas whose main goal is to protect the body, speech and mind of others. Refers to the fact that when obscurations such as for instance anger, competitiveness, envy, or jealousy arise within our minds, we should apply the antidotes which are antithetical to these immediately without waiting until the afflictions have increased in power, at which point they are difficult to overcome. Applying the antidotes, we should eliminate them. Has said that the minimum is when afflictions such as anger or envy arise in our minds, to mentally think I will put them away and focus on one’s own breath. When one focuses on one’s own breath, the mind is gathered inwards, and it makes it more difficult for these afflictions to arise.
Therefore, the text reads, stanza 35, because obscurations, when habituated, are difficult to reverse with an antidote. It is a practice of bodhisattvas to destroy obscuration, such as attachments and others the very first moment they appear using mindfulness and introspective awareness, having grasped the sword of the antidotes. And we will stop here for today. So you have probably understood that the topic of the 37 practices of a Bodhisattva is the path of the being of three scopes. And last time, Geshe-la used the setting to raise questions regarding the practice of the being of small scope that is complete.
Today, Geshe-la will interrogate you on the practice of the being of middling scope. He has two questions. You can answer one at a time. The first question is, what is the nature of the practice of the being of middling scope? The second is, what are the means to give rise to the realizations of a practitioner of the middling scope within one’s own mind.
Mhmm. You might want to wait one or two minutes before giving your answers. We have thirty minutes for you to be What are the means to give rise to the realizations of the practitioner of middling scope within one’s mind? You have been thinking. Concise.
You must understand the practice of the being of the of the small scope, the path of liberation of the being of small scope, the practice of the being of middling scope, the path of liberation of the being of middling scope, the practice of the being of great scope, the path to liberation liberation of the being of great scope. And if you can practice these, that is excellent. Yeah. Okay. Melissa?
To generate the definite emergence of Which question question are you answering? Sorry? Which question? Is the nature of the path of the being of the middling scope? To develop?
So it is difficult for the view realizing emptiness to eliminate an attraction to future lives. Geshe-la would like in this context to quote the verses from Je Tsongkhapa’s three principles of the path. To accustoming the mind to the fact that a rebirth of leisure and endowment is difficult to obtain and lasts not long, revert attachment to the vanities of this life, through thinking again and again on the incontrovertibility of causality and the suffering of samsaric existence, revert attachment to the vanities of future lives, when after meditating in this way, attachment to the marvels of cyclic existence does not arise even for one instant, and day and night one is striving for liberation, then definite emergence has been created. So here, through accustoming the mind to turning away from the vanities of this life and from the vanities of future life, when spontaneously the wish for liberation from cyclic existence arises, at this point, definite emergence has been created within the mind. So we have finished covering these two questions.
Michel I would like to ask you another question. What is the principle means for generating the path to liberation of a being of small scope. Generally speaking, that is okay as an answer. There are two types of renunciation. There is the renunciation from the sufferings of cyclic existence in general and the one which is referred to here renouncing the sufferings of the lower realms.
What is your name? David. David. Good. And Melissa.
Melissa. Melissa. Michelle, was trying to know most of your names. As Je Tsongkhapa says in one of his prayers for on mind training, one must train in the practices of all three beings. Now here regarding training in the practice of the being of small scope, we have covered a stanza in the 37 practices of the Bodhis Bodhisattvas, which says all is ephemeral as a drop of water, a drop of dew on a blade of grass.
Friends do not dwell and this body is transient as a bubble. It is the practice of Bodhisattvas to renounce to this life. This stanza teaches clearly that the main practice of the being of small scope is meditating on impermanence. Do you have questions on today’s teaching? Yes, Richard.
Richard. Yes. We would like to ask you a favor. Could you summarize your question? Procedures.
Geshe-la gave the example of His Holiness the Dalai Lama because it’s a simpler way to proceed. It’s easier to understand. When we analyze and meditate on the selflessness of persons with ourselves as a basis, initially we have to elicit, to bring up that innate grasping at a sense of persons within ourselves and then use that as the foundation to establish that that clearly is nonexistent and false. So what you are saying is true. When we actually meditate on the selflessness of persons, it is on the selflessness of our own self on which we meditate.
However, here, for simplicity, Geshe-la took the example of His Holiness appearance. So we are identical to others in having five aggregates. Then when one engages in meditating on the selflessness of persons on one’s own basis, and gains realization, this is naturally extended from ourselves to other persons. So therefore, in Geshe-la’s opinion, that I, which is an accumulator of karma and an experience of actions, does not exist. However, he will not interrogate you about this today.
He will interrogate you about this next time and asks you to reflect carefully. So Geshe-la, I would like to suggest that you think on whether the fact that His Holiness and Dalai Lama is not the imputer on the basis of which His Holiness and Dalai Lama arises, but it’s another person who imputes on the basis of the perception of the Dalai Lama, the Dalai Lama’s existence, might contradict that viewpoint. Take yourself as an example. You are Chris. Then you do not impute the name Chris on the basis of the aggregates which are your basis of imputation.
Another person imputes a name Chris on the basis of your aggregates. Yes. So to answer your question, if one is a a strict practitioner or a fully characterized practitioner of the small scope, then the antidote to anger should be the practice of the 10 virtues and rejecting the 10 non virtues. Within the ethics of the 10 non virtues, there is the abandonment of the three mental non virtues, covetousness, ill will, and wrong views. Since ill will is the root of anger, the abandonment of ill will leads to the abandonment of anger.
What do you mean by abstract? Sorry? What do you mean by abstract? So it is not the case that conventional truths obstruct or obscure ultimate truths because neither conventional truths nor ultimate truths are objects of refutation. Our ultimate truths are definitely not objects of refutation.
What is an object of refutation is the ignorant ignorance which apprehends or which grasps the true existence of phenomena. Phenomena. This you can posit as an object of refutation. You mean how much is expectation of us? That’s what you’re asking.
They’re both. If you’re a disciple of Khensur Rinpoche, there are both practitioners who are beings of the small scope and practitioners who are not beings of the small scope. We will stop here for today.