Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A student’s question about who Śāntideva really means by “enemy” opens this 13.5-minute Q&A with Geshe Pema Tsering. He distinguishes two kinds of enemy — human adversaries and afflictive emotions — and shows that both dissolve once one realises selflessness: the cherished “I” is what generates enemies, so seeing through its inherent existence removes the ground for both. He then uses a clock as a concrete example to illustrate how things exist only as imputed names, not from their own side. The session closes by unpacking “weak mind”: a mind lacking sufficient analytical power and wisdom to realise emptiness, and therefore still vulnerable to affliction. Suited to students already following the Bodhicharyavatara commentary.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 2006 01 30 Q Bodhisattvas Way of Life.mp3
UUID: a35ab52b-106a-40f6-8f73-60a4b4ddab54
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Bodhisattva Way of Life 2005 Mar -2007 (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2006-01-30
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 13.5 minutes
Words: ~846
Yes. I think I’ve I’ve Michel has explained tonight about the relationship between the afflictive emotion and the enemy. But I was wondering, which who is enemy? Which enemy is he talking about? Or he’s talking about human beings.
He was talking about human beings. human beings. Yes. The human beings, but then afflictive emotion itself, it’s also can be could be enemy, our enemy. That’s Yes.
Of mine, of ours. That’s it. Afflictive emotion is our enemy. You’re right. Is the enemy existing outside of us, or does it arise from our side of the afflictive emotion or their side of the afflictive emotion? In so therefore, if there is no I existence, there is no such enemy. So then okay.
So can I just explain the both enemies? Okay? Both enemies. The human enemy and the enemy of the afflictive emotions. Okay?
If one realizes selflessness, selflessness, if one realizes that there is no self, that there is no I, then there is no enemy. One gets rid of the fetter of emotions and one does not have external external enemies also. But as a matter of fact, right now, there is an I. Right now, we do experience an I because it comes from the side of that non investigating consciousness. We do have presently that non investigating consciousness that conceives of a of a hidden existent self, of an hidden existent I.
And then because of that consciousness, we regard that I very highly, very importantly. So then it is that I that we regard so very important that we cherish so much — that we have to get rid of. We have to in order to do that, the only way to do that is to realize emptiness, to realize the lack of inherent existence of the self through an investigating consciousness. Okay? So then so yeah.
The for as as for the word ‘aggregation’, Geshe-la says it is used as a word, It is used in this manner. So because the the clock, what we call a clock, is an actual aggregation of many parts of plastics and and and and how do you call this? The hands. The hands and and many other gears and mechanisms. Then on on on on that aggregation, we impute a name onto it.
So it exists as a name, but it it does not exist as a clock from its own side. Because if we investigate, if we take the if if we search this, if we look for the clock in in this aggregation, we will not find the clock. If we look for for each of this all of its parts are not the clock itself. And then if we if if we put all the parts together, then we do not find the clock also because each of the parts are not and and so forth. There are many reasons.
So and then we can understand that it it does not exist exist from its own side. Existing is its existence is is merely imputed from from our side. So if you’re asking you’re asking if it is a concept. Yeah. Okay.
Yes. It is a concept. It is a mistaken concept. Yes. Okay?
The we talked about a weak mind. mentioned in the teaching. Yes. Yes. Does that refer to more of a a lazy sort of mind that can’t apply the effort, or is it a mind that hasn’t been able to reach emptiness sort of weak compared to strong, which would be Okay.
So then Geshe-la explains that what is called this was translated by Stephen Batchelor as weak mind. And this is just as what Geshe-la has been explained. It is it is a weak mind in in as opposed to a strong mind. It is a bad mind as opposed to a good mind. It means is is a mind that that doesn’t have power, is a mind that doesn’t have the power of is not how do say, cannot apply is not proficient, is not is not how do you say, it is not strong at applying reasoning or logic.
The antidote or Or antidotes. Yeah. He he was particularly the the the mind of he he talked about particular of reasoning and and logic. Yeah. This has weak is is is a weak with little wisdom.
We can which cannot we didn’t have the power of of strong analysis and and so forth. It’s a mind that that what he’s saying is that how how would I how would I put it? It does So then, it is not that it does not have, how do you say, any any reasoning at all. It’s just that it is it’s not strong. It’s not proficient.
It doesn’t have, enough wisdom, enough reasoning power to to realize emptiness. And then because because it is not strong enough, powerful enough with reason and wisdom to realize it, then the afflictive emotions must continue to harm us. Okay? Yeah. Yes.
Okay. Shall we finish here today?