Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A striking image anchors this 36-minute Q&A: just as insects in a toilet pit experience their situation as happiness while we recognise it as suffering, Geshe Pema Tsering argues we similarly fail to see samsaric pleasures for what they are. The session marks the close of Chapter Five of Śāntideva’s Bodhisattva’s Deeds, then turns to student questions. A central exchange unpacks a subtle doctrinal point: others’ suffering is not your own, yet it is your “object of abandonment” — and reaching enlightenment requires abandoning all such objects. Geshe-la explains that Buddha Śākyamūni “eliminating Elaine’s suffering” means removing the obscuration that prevents guiding her to buddhahood, not that she ceases to suffer. The session closes with the distinction between a bodhisattva’s aspiring bodhicitta and the Buddha’s perfected, omniscient compassion — vast and active yet free from personal pain.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 46 BD 2002 07 25.mp3
UUID: 3b02e557-087d-42ba-8814-b3ac2eb500fa
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Bodhisattva Deeds (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2002-07-25
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 36.1 minutes
Words: ~1,819
So here concludes the fifth chapter of the Bodhisattva Engaging in the Bodhisattva’s Deeds, which is guarding alertness. Oh, yeah. Geshe-la Said that we’ll take questions. No questions about how to eat dinner?
You alright with that, Joe? You can or you can’t? Yes. It’s yeah. Yeah.
All we didn’t just get to tell. Yeah. But Geshe-la didn’t say all happiness are suffering. The samsaric happiness. That’s what it meant.
Yeah. Yeah. Geshe-la said no. And because the the happiness and the suffering are contradictory. They’re all completely opposite.
And broadly. Love it. Love it. It. Those the happiness of the samsaric happiness, they are actual they are not a real happiness.
By nature, they are suffering. But for us, they they we see them as a happiness, but in reality, they are not happiness. So so, yeah, those samsaric happiness are not a real happiness. They are suffering, but we see them as happiness. And and so which means they are not happiness.
And Geshe-la said, for example, if if Geshe-la gives an example here, an example is when you dig the toilet, for example, you know, and in a toilet, you know, not just the real toilet, you know, goes boom, boom, boom, there should be a hole somewhere. You dig the toilet and you can see all the the the creatures in that insects and and, yeah, organisms and so forth. And for us, it is a suffering down there. But but the the said insects there, they don’t think that, you know, they are they are suffering. You know?
For them, being there is a happiness. They it is like this. So we see, you know, the happiness, but in reality, they are not happiness. So we can understand the being in that the toilet hole is suffering, which we understand, but self we don’t understand being in some cyclic existence is suffering some the happiness. We don’t see them as a suffering.
And likewise, those the being in that hole, you know, like a like a little insect. For them, it’s happiness. And even if you try to take one and out, and they’re trying to get in as much as as soon as they possible. You know? Because for them, it’s a happiness.
Is it true? Yes. I’m interested in the idea of the other. You wanna versus tonight to see if we should do everything for the sake of the other. You and the other.
Okay. Very tricky one. Nope. Their sufferings are not your suffering and and and and not your suffering, but yeah. Because it’s because it’s not cultivated by you.
Because they cultivate themself and you haven’t cultivated. And that that means they they their suffering is not your suffering. And and and you don’t go through their suffering, but their suffering is your object of abandonment. And so in order to attain enlightenment, their suffering is also the object of abandonment because in order to achieve enlightenment, one has to abandon all the objects of abandonment and achieve the entire realization or, yeah, attainment. So therefore, the other suffering is not your suffering, and you won’t suffer other suffering, but their suffering is your abandonment.
So so? What’s the word for abandonment? To be eliminated. It is suffering. Yeah.
It is Yeah. To abandon the negativities of non virtuous actions. So yourself Right. Yep. It is because because the the suffering of others is object of abandonment.
Abandonment. Therefore, when you to to attain enlightenment, one should abandon all the abandonments. So this is the case. Because the other suffering is object of abandonment, one has to abandon it to in order to attain enlightenment. Without abandoning the other suffering, one will not reach the enlightenment.
It’s the monastic, you know, philosophical debate terms, actually. So in order to attain enlightenment, one has to abandon all the objects of abandonment and attain the entire realizations or entire good qualities. Means all the qualities of the bodhisattvas means there should be nothing left which you don’t understand or which you don’t know. So that is the point. If you so because you have to, you know, abandon all the objects of abandonment without leaving a single one, as well as the same applies to the qualities.
So therefore, because the suffering of others is — the nature of their suffering is — an object of abandonment. So therefore, you should you have to say that you have abandoned the other suffering as well. Because because if you say, nope, you know, it’s you have not you have not abandoned others’ objects of abandonment, then the debate will come up. Is others’ suffering an object of abandonment or not? They will say, You’re in big trouble, Elaine.
And so for Geshe-la said, if the example here, the Elaine’s suffering and and and the Geshe-la’s suffering, for example. So in order to attain yeah. Like, for example, like, Buddha Śākyamūni has attained enlightenment. And Buddha Śākyamūni has abandoned entire abandonment, has abandoned all his sufferings as well as Elaine’s suffering. Because without but if Buddha Śākyamūni have not abandoned the Elaine’s suffering, then he will he will never be able to bring Elaine to the buddhahood.
So therefore so the Elaine Buddha Śākyamūni has enlightened and has abandoned the Elaine’s. So he his and Elaine’s suffering or abandoned sufferings, but it doesn’t mean Elaine doesn’t need to go through suffering at all. But he has attained enlightenment, abandoned Elaine’s suffering. So therefore, he has a capability of bringing Elaine into Buddhahood. Yep.
I know, Joe. You want to ask a question? I don’t think it’s finished, but Oh, yeah. That’s what I’m saying. You know?
You you next. You don’t have okay. Yes. Yeah. Buddha Śākyamūni still has bodhicitta, and his bodhicitta is a very ultimate bodhicitta has perfected and and and has free from entire obscurations and can see the entire phenomena.
It’s not it’s not like the Buddhist bodhicitta of the Bodhisattvas who have not attained enlightenment. Whereas bodhicitta of the Bodhisattvas, they can acknowledge the sufferings of the sentient beings, and they can aspire for omniscience or enlightenment only. And beside them, they don’t they still have not perfected, means not not free of the the free from the entire obscurations. Therefore therefore, the yeah. Entire obscuration, therefore, they can’t see they are not omniscient yet.
Whereas Buddha Śākyamūni’s altruistic intention or bodhicitta is the omniscient one. Okay. I think having a language problem here now. Maybe obscuration. No.
It’s not obscuration. Well, So it’s the same explanation we said earlier — that when we say ‘eliminate abandonment,’ in the sense — it’s a language problem here. When we said eliminate, eliminate suffering, the Buddha Śākyamūni has eliminated Elaine’s suffering. When we said eliminate Elaine’s suffering, that doesn’t mean no longer Elaine has to go through the suffering. It doesn’t mean that way.
What it means is, for example, now Buddha Śākyamūni has attained enlightenment and free of entire obscurations. There’s no obscurations at all, any object, any phenomena. And and and and so this is and Buddha Śākyamūni has abandoned in sorry, in in suffering or eliminate suffering. What it meant is because Buddha Śākyamūni, if Buddha Śākyamūni has not abandoned or eliminate Ilan’s suffering, then Buddha Śākyamūni has not completely free from entire obscurations because the because if Buddha Śākyamūni has not abandoned Elaine’s suffering, then there is one obscuration left, which is that the the obscuration which is preventing bringing Elaine into Buddhahood — means Buddha Śākyamūni will not have the capability of bringing Elaine into enlightenment.
So therefore therefore, Buddha Śākyamūni when we say Buddha Śākyamūni has abandoned — eliminated — Elaine’s suffering, which means that by abandoning that, he is now free of all obscurations and will and he has the capability of preaching and then bringing Elaine into the buddhahood. If he has not, then he will not be able to bring Elaine into the buddhahood. Does that help? Can you repeat that? Well, I think I’ll just tell about my translation here now that abandoning abandonment here, which means well, I mean, the Tibetan word for “object of abandonment” — and the object of elimination and object of abandonment, and so forth — are the common translations.
These have been common translations, mostly used by all the translators and which means it it it’s not as used as as as the normal language we use, like eliminate. Elaine’s suffering, which we will have a connotation understanding. Well, if Elaine’s suffering has been eliminated, it means bring into the cessation, then then no longer Elaine has a suffering. This is not the way. We probably have to wear the Dharma hat.
And and and so when we say eliminate attachment and so forth, it’s also, you know, bringing them into cessation. So when in terms of that philosophical term that Buddha Śākyamūni as well, who is omniscient and free from all obscurations because because if Buddha Śākyamūni has not abandoned Elaine’s object of abandonment, then he won’t have any potential. He won’t have potential to bring Elaine into the Buddhahood. So bringing Elaine into buddhahood would become an obscuration — one obscuration for Buddha Śākyamūni. Because he is free of all obscurations, he has therefore abandoned Elaine’s abandonment, because Elaine’s abandonment is an obscuration for Buddha Śākyamūni in bringing Elaine into Buddhahood.
Therefore, he has abandoned — or eliminated — Elaine’s suffering because he has the capability of bringing Elaine into the Buddhahood. That’s what it meant, but nothing to do with Elaine is no more going through sufferings and so forth. So when you say emotions, for example, like, when I see or you see somebody suffering and you feel emotional — going through a kind of empathy. No?
No. I don’t think. Got it. Got it. Got it.
You can that is also suitable to apply onto that that subject matter because Buddha Śākyamūni has great compassion and and and towards Elaine, and Elaine’s going through suffering. But once you have attained enlightenment, there’s no suffering at all. It’s always happiness, and which is the the the stable and everlasting happiness, and there’s no suffering at all. Therefore and Buddha Śākyamūni, when he has a great compassion for Elaine and Elaine’s suffering, and he does not go through emotional pain like ourselves because he can see not just Elaine’s suffering. What what is the cause of the suffering and the conditions and everything?
Whereas for us, when, like, one one one of the family members is suffering, and along with the the member, you suffering with it because of your relations and so forth, you go through huge pain. But whereas Buddha Śākyamūni, no matter whoever it is, either his cousins or so forth or any sentient beings, he can have equal compassion but never has pain or any sufferings within him. Right. Is it your question?