Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The image of “water poured into water” — used to describe the meditative equipoise of a realized being — anchors this 46-minute session, in which Geshe Pema Tsering works through Madhyamaka definitions of the two truths. He clarifies what “dualistic appearances” means: the simultaneous appearance of conventional existence and true existence in a single perception. He then distinguishes how ordinary beings and supreme beings perceive phenomena differently, and walks through a formal philosophical debate in which schools asserting true existence challenge whether the Middle Way has valid logical proof for the absence of inherent existence — tracing the “neither one nor many” argument and the reply to the charge that emptiness renders spiritual practice meaningless. A pointed audience question on whether any perception can truly be non-dualistic draws a careful, precise response. Suited to practitioners already familiar with Madhyamaka philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 72 BD 2002 09 26.mp3
UUID: 43576f22-e640-46f0-9efa-8febb2e8411a
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Bodhisattva Deeds (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2002-09-26
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.9 minutes
Words: ~2,627
Yeah. So it is within that verse two anyway. When there’s a deceptive truth and ultimate truth — the deceptive truth here is what I’m calling the conventional truth. And it is so called because they are formally — that’s the so called definition. So formally we’re starting from the the verse two, actually, that from the number two, one.
Truth comprehended by the superior wisdom to which no deceptive appears. The yep. The first one, the definition of the ultimate truth now. And the ultimate truth is not the object that can be perceived by the dualistic mind. It will not be perceived — it’s not the object perceived by the dualistic mind. And so — did you turn on the recording? No.
So that’s a brief explanation. The actual definition of the ultimate truth is that that which apprehends the object without the dualistic appearances. Yeah. And and then the so I repeat the definition of the ultimate truth here again. That it’s the same.
It’s gonna be the same, Joe. Don’t worry. The ultimate truth the ultimate truth is that which apprehends without the dualistic appearances. Whereas so the the definition of the conventional truth is opposite to that, that which apprehend with the dualistic appearances. So when we say in the definition the dualistic appearances now, and what are the those two dualistic appearances?
The one is called the appearance of the conventional as well and the appearance of the true existence. Those are the two appearances, which yeah. And then so when we say the free of dualistic appearances and that it has to be the wisdom or should be realized by those supreme beings who have realized emptiness directly. For those for those supreme beings from starting from the the it’s actually the supreme beings starting from the path of seeing. And those who have those do not have those two appearances of the which are conventional and the true existence.
And even for the supreme beings, when we say the supreme beings, it’s the meditative equipoise of the supreme beings. So speaking of this, then in yep. In the mind of meditative meditative equipoise of the supreme beings, there is no conventional truths. Got it. Because they are because the conventional and appearance of conventional and the appearance of true existence are not there in the of the supreme beings.
So therefore which means they realize emptiness directly. Right? And then, You know, yeah, there was. Got it. Got And then for the conventional truth which is apprehended with the dualistic appearances.
So which means then, for example, the the the cognition. Yep, which apprehends, for example, like a glass or oneself that been been apprehended with the the appearance of conventional as well as the true existence. Do you fully understand the definitions of the two truths? I don’t know where I am at the moment. So to make it more simple or yep.
Simple then as we there are two truths. They are con conventional and the ultimate truth and on each and so so on the basis of those and there is the the the cognition or perception which perceives the phenomena. So the perception which perceives the phenomena with the dualistic appearances is called the conventional and and that which apprehend with without with without the two dualistic appearances are the con the ultimate truth. So speaking of this, then it’s that, for example, like the vase, the the the emptiness of the vase has been is been realized or been apprehended by the cognition without the dualistic appearances. And the vase itself has been apprehended with the dualistic appearances.
This is the difference now. Is that better? And now to the third subdivision. So, yeah, establishing the two types of self or a person. Because there are two truths, there are two types of persons now.
And so to make it be more clear that there are two persons which are the supreme being and the ordinary beings. So as we said, the the there there are two two types of person which apprehends the the two truths or or or the phenomenon. So which are these: ordinary beings and supreme beings. For the ordinary beings, it could be many and the supreme beings, which are those who realize emptiness directly. And and for the ordinary beings, there could be many as we said. And and there are also certain the the disciples of the tenets which establish or assert the true existence of the phenomena.
And for those practitioners or followers of such tenets which establish the true existence of the phenomena, then the logic or the view of the Madhyamaka views are very effective in refuting them. The reason why the middle way views are effective against the view of those followers of the tenets which ascertain the true existence of the phenomena is because the logics of the Madhyamaka schools, logics like logics logics of the free of yeah, logical reasons like they are I think it’s yeah.
The vase is neither one nor many. And and and there’s one way of establishing the nonexistence of inherent existence of phenomena. These are two logics: neither one nor many. And then the other logic is through the logical reasoning of interdependence.
And as for those beings who ascertain still yeah. Yep. The the yogis. Sorry. So yogis of the Madhyamakas.
And and even though they they they realized empty yep. This they equally realized the emptiness and but within within within the beings of the the yogis, they are the the the the superior and the inferior or the difference in their levels. For example, those the the, yeah, beings in this the second ground or the highest are the more superior than those beings on the the first ground or the in the path of accumulation and the preparation. Yeah. Path of accumulation and the preparation.
So they are still the difference in the levels even though there’s equally realized or they have realized the same emptiness in a sense. Oh, yeah. Got it. And now to the third one of the third divisions, which is the the avoiding or abandoning the the the debate. So and it has three divisions as as well.
The defeating the the argument or debates on the basis of two truths is the one. And the second one is on the basis of the path, which is emptiness. And then and the resultant of which is the for the sake of others. So there are three. The first one is explained in in the next six lines.
So now here it it is to to to defeat the the debate. So that becomes now the the text will go through the non-Buddhist philosophers, you know, who ascertain the true existence, so their view, and then the opposition from the middle way part. So this is how it goes now. No. So now refuting the object concerning the deceptive truth, this is where the text here says.
So the debate here comes. Now question was asked by those the other schools of the Middle Way School or the the school which is certain of the true existence of the phenomena. And so the the question was asked by that those who established the asserted true existence to the middle way philosophers or middle way school saying, your logic can’t harm or affect our assertion of true existence, because you don’t have the valid logical proof to establish the non-existence of inherent existence.
Sorry. The inherent existence or not You don’t have the valid logical proofs to establish the the the phenomena are free of true existence. And then the middle way school responds, saying no — their arguments are wrong.
It’s wrong, which means they have the the valid reasons to prove the nonexistence the That the free of inherent existence of the phenomena. And, yeah, as we say, the middle way school, they said that, nope. You are wrong that we have a logical reason to prove the the the yeah. It’s not the free of true existence of this phenomena, free of true existence. Because, for example, we can on the basis of on the both of us saying yep.
Saying the the dreams, the the the the all the reflections. So we can take those reflections, dreams as as a basis and yeah. As an as an example and we can prove through the logical reasons that they are the free of true existence. And then but the and when Middle Way school set forth such answer and then the other fought back or fight back saying, if that is so or if that is so, then all the works, you know, for all the works to attain enlightenment for the sake of others, like practicing generosity and so forth, are meaningless or useless because the Buddhahood and the state of Buddhahood is free of true existence. This is what the other school says.
And the Middle Way school answers, you can’t you can’t incur such a fault because because yep. Even though the the the the enlightenment state or Buddhahood and the practice of six perfection so forth are are free of true existence, but but they but they do exist. They do exist nominally. So therefore therefore, it is the reasonable and one and there is a benefit or or or or there is it is suitable to work in the practices of generosity and so forth to attain enlightenment. What?
So we’ll stop here. Questions. Take a few questions. I’d like a clarification on the nondualistic perception because it seems that if there’s a perception, there is a perceiver and a perceived. Yep.
So that that in itself must be dualistic. Yep. Did you say the dualistic? A nondualistic perception. Right.
Like a being seeing the emptiness of the vase Yeah. Yeah. Is a nondualistic perception. Right. Right.
But there must be a perceiver and a perceived. Mhmm. So therefore, that in itself seems to be dualistic. So can you explain what’s meant by nondual? So oh, no.
Oops. So here, the dualistic perception here, which means the the yep. The vase. So for example, like, when the the cognition, the perception, not of the meditative equipoise of the supreme beings, in general, for example, is for instance, that that the the vase itself is a conventional truth. So by perceiving the vase and additional to that, not only that, and and the person, the perceiver, the person who who do not realize emptiness or who grasps at, ascertains the the true existence of the phenomena for that person then have both the appearances because the first one perceiving the vase because the vase itself is conventional truth.
So it has a conventional appearance of the conventional truth. And additionally, it also apprehends the true existence of the vase. So those are the two appearances by the single perception. And for those in the meditative equipoise, the supreme beings, when they perceive the vase, so they have no appearances of conventional appearances or the true existence because they not just realize the emptiness, they directly realize the emptiness.
The difference between the direct realized emptiness is because they don’t even have a generic image of the emptiness or a generic image of the vase. So therefore they don’t apprehend or realize the vase. They realize the emptiness of the vase. By realizing the emptiness of the vase, that emptiness is not conventional truth — they realize it itself as being free of true existence.
So for those in the meditative equipoise — the meditative equipoise of the supreme beings — they have no dualistic appearances. This is how it So the so when when we so for those, the your wisdom or perception of the meditative stabilization of the supreme being, then it is like, you know, they have no dualistic appearances in the sense. When we say they only recognize they apprehends the the the emptiness of of the vase or anything. And so for them, they don’t even they don’t have the appearance of it itself. The meditative equipoise of the supreme being itself — wisdom itself — can’t be seen as a separate object.
I mean, if you ask whether they realize that themselves or wisdom itself, they do indirectly. But when in the deep meditative equipoise, in that moment, it’s like the mixing of water into water, which means you can’t really see it. Just the one water. So it’s it’s like them. So these are the two ways of perceiving the object: with the dualistic appearances, those who have not realized emptiness.
So with the the vase as a conventional and then true existence of the vase. And this is one way of perceiving it with the dualistic appearance and and perception. And one without the dualistic perception is the meditative equipoise, you know, the yep. Of the supreme beings. So one which apprehends without the dualistic appearance is only which only perceive the emptiness. That you get, Geshe-la.
That was a sharp person asking a sharp question, Geshe-la. And that was a comment. Yes, Yeah. Well, in terms of arhats, you know, when an arhat is an arhat, they’ve been liberated. So been free.
They can’t be born under the influence of disturbing emotion and the karma. So and therefore, so whenever they take rebirth for the sake of entire sentient beings or for the sake of others, but they are still the arhats and they they have realized the emptiness. And and they haven’t and for have haven’t forgotten anything. And and because of being arhat and the beings like us, you know, who are being projected by the under the influence of disturbing emotions, the karma, they forget everything. I have to restart from the beginning.
Right? So for those the who take rebirth for the sake of others, and then they come as ordinary beings, but they are in fact, they are not the ordinary beings, but they come to benefit the sentient beings and come as ordinary beings. So we don’t recognize or we can’t understand them as they really are. Therefore, there could be it is possible that there are a few in this this class, but we can’t understand who are they. Could be possible.
Are you? Okay. Yeah. So do they receive benefit or do they do they receive? If I yes.
Do they receive the merit or benefit? Oh, yeah. Yes. It also benefits the sentient beings because by dedicating all one’s merits for the sake of all beings, making offerings to the Buddhas for the sake of sentient beings. By doing so, you cultivate numbers of a huge amount of merit.
And by yep. Yeah. By developing or by generating huge amount of merit in your completion of the accumulation of merit is also becoming more or closer in the sense becoming the Buddhahood closer. And your attainment of Buddhahood is ultimately to help the sentient beings. So therefore, it benefit the sentient beings because a person who’s going to help them, you know, the yeah.
Arrival of their benefactor is bit more closer. So therefore, it benefits the sentient beings essentially. And then guess and Right. Yeah. So yeah.
And then yeah. The attainment of Anthony’s enlightenment becomes closer. And when Anthony becomes enlightened, then sentient beings have huge benefit because there is Anthony enlightened as a Buddha to help them. Yeah. Boy.
No. No. It’s okay. Sorry.