Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The image of water dissolving into water — indistinguishable, undivided — anchors Geshe Pema Tsering’s 45-minute exploration of how beings in deep meditative equipoise perceive emptiness without dualistic appearances. Working from the Bodhisattva Deeds text, he first defines the two truths: conventional truth is apprehended with appearances of both the conventional and of true existence; ultimate truth is apprehended entirely free of those two. He maps this onto ordinary beings and those who have directly realized emptiness, then moves into a formal philosophical debate in which middle-way logicians defend non-inherent existence and rebut the charge that such a view makes practices like generosity meaningless. A sharp Q&A closes the session, with a student pressing on whether non-dualistic perception is itself a form of duality.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 73 BD 2002 09 29.mp3
UUID: fe2ba030-446d-4d02-a8da-6400950f5d2e
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Bodhisattva Deeds (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2002-09-29
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.1 minutes
Words: ~2,412
Ultimate truth and conventional truth — the minds, they are two types. So it is within that verse two anyway. I think when there’s a deceptive truth and ultimate truth, there’s a deceptive truth here I use is the conventional truth. And the so called because they are probably that’s the that’s the so called definition. So probably we’re starting from the the verse two actually, from the number two one.
Truth comprehended by the superior wisdom — to which no duality appears. The yep. The first one, the 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 — Larry, Larry, did you turn on the recording? So that’s a brief explanation. The actual definition of the ultimate truth is that that which the mind that which apprehends the object without the dualistic appearances. No.
And then, so I repeat the definition of the ultimate truth here again. It’s the same, it’s gonna be same, Joe, don’t worry. The ultimate truth is that which apprehends without the dualistic appearances. Whereas, so the conventional truth, definition of the conventional truth is opposite to that, that which apprehend with the dualistic appearance. System.
So when we say in the definition the dualistic appearances now, and what are those two dualistic appearances? The one is called appearance of the conventional and the appearance of the true existence. Those are the two appearances, which yeah. And then, so when we say the free of not with a dualistic appearance and that it has to be the wisdom or should be realized by those supreme beings who have realized emptiness directly. For those supreme beings from starting from the it’s actually the supreme beings starting from the path of seeing.
And those who 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 being, it is the meditative equipoise of the supreme beings. So speaking of this, then in the mind of meditative equipoise of the supreme beings, there is no conventional truth. Because the appearance of the conventional and the appearance of true existence are not there in the meditative equipoise of the supreme beings. So therefore, which means they realize emptiness directly.
And then for the convention conventional truth, which is apprehended with the dualistic appearances. So which means then, for example, the cognition, which apprehends, for example, like a glass or oneself that been apprehended with 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 simple then, there are two truths.
They are conventional and the ultimate truth. And on each end, so on the base of those. And there is the cognition or perception which perceives the phenomena. So, and the perception which perceives the phenomena with the dualistic appearances is called the conventional. And that which apprehend without the dualistic appearances are the ultimate truths.
So speaking of this, then it’s that for example, like the the vase, the emptiness of the vase has 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 establishing the two self or a person. And establishing the two person which establishes the two truths, which actually means because there are two truths, there are two types of persons now. And so to make it more clear that there are two persons which are the supreme being and the ordinary beings. So as we said, there are two types of person which apprehends the two truths or the phenomenon. So which are these ordinary beings.
The ordinary beings, it could be many. And the supreme beings, are those who realize emptiness directly. And for the ordinary beings, there could be many, as we said. And there are also certain the disciples of the tenets which establishes or asserts the true existence of the phenomena. And for those practitioners or the followers of such tenets which establish agrees the true existence of the phenomenon.
For those beings, then the logic or the view of the Madhyamaka views are very effective, in that sense. The reason why the middle way views are effective against the views of those followers of the tenets which ascertain the true existence of the phenomena is because of the logics of the Madhyamakas — logical reasons like: the vase is neither one nor many. And there’s one way of establishing the non existence nonexistence of the phenomena. It’s one the two logics, neither one nor many. And then the other logical is through the reasoning of interdependence.
And as for those beings who are the yogis of the Madhyamakas. And even though they realized empty, they equally realized the emptiness. But within the beings who are yogis, there are the superior and the inferior — a difference in their levels. For example, the beings in the second ground or the highest are the more superior than those beings on the first ground or in the path of accumulation and the preparation. path of accumulation and the preparation.
So there are still the difference in the levels even though they’re equally realized or they have realized the same emptiness. And now to the third one of the third divisions, which is the avoiding or abandoning the debate. Alright? So and it has three divisions as well. The defeating 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 the resultant which is for the sake of others. So there are three. The first one is explained in the next six lines. So now here it is to defeat the debate.
So that becomes now the text will go through the non-Buddhist philosophers who ascertain the true existence, so their view, and then the opposition from the middle way part, this is how it goes now. So now refuting the object concerning the deceptive truth, this is where the text here says. So the debate here comes. The question was asked by those, the other schools of the Madhyamaka or the school which ascertains the true existence of the phenomena. So the question was asked by those who asserted the true existence to the middle way philosophers or middle way school saying, your logic can’t harm or affect our true existence because you don’t have the logical, the valid logical proof to establish the non existence of the truth, sorry, inherent existent or not.
You don’t have the valid logical proofs to establish the phenomena or free of true existence. And then the middle way school responds, saying no — their arguments are wrong — which means the Madhyamikas have the valid reasons to prove the non-existence, that is, the free of inherent existence of the phenomena. And yes, as we say, the middle way school, said that, no, you are wrong that we have a logical reason to prove the, it’s not the free of true existence of the phenomena, free of true existence.
Because for example, we can on the basis of on the both of us saying the dreams, all the reflections, so we can take those reflections, dreams as a basis, as an example, and we can prove through the logical reasons that they are free of true existence. And then 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 work, you know, all the work to attain enlightenment for the sake of others, by practicing generosity and so forth, are meaningless or useless because Buddhahood itself is free of true existence. This is what the other school says. And the middle of the answers, you can’t we can’t receive such a fault because because yep. Even though the the the the enlightenment state or Buddhahood and the practices of the six perfections and so forth are free of true existence, but they do exist.
They do exist nominally. So therefore, it is the reasonable one, and there is a benefit or or or there is it is suitable to work in the practices of in the in the practices of generosity and so forth to attain enlightenment. So we’ll stop here. If you have 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 in itself must be dualistic. Yep. Did you say that 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 nondualistic? So oh, no.
Oops. So here, the dualistic perception here, which means the yep. The vast. So for example, like, when the the cognition, the perception, not of the meditative equipoise of the supreme being — for instance, the vase itself is a conventional truth. So by perceiving the vase, and additional to that, not only that, and and the perceiver, the person who does not realize emptiness, who ascertains the true existence of the phenomena for that person then have both appearances because the first one perceiving the vase because the vase itself is a conventional truth.
So it has a convention appearance of the conventional truth. And additionally, it also establishes the true existence of the vase. So those are the two appearances by their 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 don’t just realize emptiness — they directly realize emptiness. The difference of the direct realization of emptiness is because they don’t even have a generic image of emptiness or a generic image of the vase.
So therefore, they don’t they don’t re-apprehend or realize the vase. They realize the emptiness of the vase. So it is only now so yeah. By realizing the emptiness of the vase, the emptiness of the vase is not the conventional truth, and they realize it itself as being free of true existence. So for those in the meditative equipoise of the supreme beings, they have no dualistic appearances.
This is how we So the so when when we so for those, the 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 apprehend the emptiness 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 can’t be seen. I mean, if you ask whether they realize themselves or wisdom itself, they do indirectly. 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 like them. So these are the two ways of perceiving the object with the dualistic appearances, those who haven’t realized the emptiness. So with the vase as a conventional and then true existence of the vase. And this is the one way of perceiving it with the dualistic appearance and perception.
And one without the dualistic perception is the meditative equipoise, of the supreme beings. The one which apprehends without the dualistic appearance is the one which only perceives emptiness. That’s right. That was a sharp person with a sharp question, Geshe-la.
And that was a comment. Yes, Well, in terms of arhats, you know, when an arhat is an arhat, they’ve been liberated. They’ve become free. They can’t be born under the influence of disturbing emotions and karma, and therefore whenever they take rebirth for the sake of all sentient beings, for the sake of others, they are still arhats, and they have realized emptiness. And they haven’t forgotten anything because of being arhat and beings like us, you know, who are being projected by the under the influence of disturbing emotions, the karma, they forget everything.
They have to restart from the beginning. So for those who take rebirth for the sake of others, and then they comes as ordinary being, 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 the arhat beings. Therefore, there could be. It is possible that there are a few arhats in this class, but we can’t understand who are they.
Could be possible. Are you? Okay. Yes. Or do they From Do they receive?
If I Yes. Do they receive the merit or benefit? 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.
So and your attainment of Buddhahood is to attain the enlightenment, is to help the sentient beings. So therefore, it benefit the sentient beings because a person who’s going to help them, you know, the arrival of their benefactor is bit more closer. So therefore, it benefits the sentient beings. And then guess and Right. So yeah.
And then yeah. The attainment of Anthony’s enlightenment becomes closer. And when Anthony becomes enlightened, then sentient beings have a huge benefit because there is Anthony enlightened as a Buddha to help them.