Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Three vivid images — a king who leads the way, a shepherd who waits for every last sheep, and companions walking side by side — anchor Geshe Pema Tsering’s explanation of the three types of aspirational bodhichitta in this 44-minute session. He first completes his walkthrough of the sevenfold cause-and-effect method, arguing that equanimity is both the hardest and most essential step: without it, no link in the chain holds. He then contrasts this method with the exchange of self and others practice — both lead to bodhichitta, but the exchange attacks self-cherishing more directly and can yield a stronger result. The session closes with Q&A on whether bodhichitta already exists in the mindstream (it doesn’t, but the seed-potential does), and a precise exchange on whether ignorance counts as a clear-and-knowing mind — and why that quality is exactly what makes it removable through wisdom.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 D BC 2004 06 01.mp3
UUID: ab2afc81-6e00-4117-8acc-e0c1fe65ad10
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: DB How to Develop Bodhichitta (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2004-06-01
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.5 minutes
Words: ~3,115
Make them free from suffering, and then we develop loving kindness. In actual facts, if we add those things up, that comes to eight, and it’s called the sevenfold cause and effect process. The reason that it comes to eight when it’s actually seven is because they don’t count equanimity within that. It’s said to be the basis for it, but if we don’t have equanimity, we don’t get anywhere. If we don’t have any link in this chain, if we don’t develop any kind of idea of repaying the kindness of sentient beings, then we can’t develop bodhicitta.
If we’re following this process in order to develop bodhicitta, we need to start at the beginning, and we need to keep working through it. The process that we follow in developing bodhicitta is to meditate on immeasurable equanimity, meditate on the idea of all beings having shown us great kindness, and then remembering that kindness, seeking to repay their kindness, and so forth. We do that in gross, very distracted way in the beginning, and then our meditation on this, our familiarization with this becomes subtler and subtler and subtler and subtler until we actually perceive this. And where we need to start for us at the beginning is the idea of equanimity because equanimity is difficult. Seeing all beings as being someone we care about is very difficult.
So, that’s the thing that we need to work on in the beginning. So the first thing we need to develop question to start off with. I thought it was an actual question. So Geshe-la wants to know if you guys all have equanimity, and he said that if you look into your mindstream then you’ll probably figure out that you don’t. So, if you don’t have equanimity then that’s the place to start, right?
It’s to start seeing all beings as being somebody who has shown you great kindness and to focus on that again and again and again and again. That means if you’re meditating on the idea of bodhicitta, that you go through this seven point cause and effect process, where you spend most of your time and most of your effort focusing on equanimity, and you try and remind yourself of equanimity all the time by focusing on it all the time. Then this understanding will become subtler and subtler, and you will see that you have more of a sense of equanimity towards all being. You need to begin at the beginning. If you don’t begin at the beginning, you don’t get anywhere else.
So this is bodhicitta, and it’s something that’s very difficult to develop. But that doesn’t mean that we should stop trying to develop it because the thing with bodhicitta is that it is also enormously beneficial. The things that it can do for us and for other beings are amazing. If we develop bodhicitta, every single action that we do becomes virtuous. Because we’re constantly working for the benefit of others, everything that we do is beneficial.
Even if we were to kill someone, even though that in itself is a negative action, our motivation would have only been to help someone. Everything that we do after we develop bodhicitta is to help someone. So, not only being with bodhicitta is someone that is respected and becomes like an object of offering, which means that they have like a true quality that needs to be respected by all beings. So it’s like one of the most precious thing that we can work towards developing. So this is what we’re working towards, the development of bodhicitta.
When we develop bodhicitta, this bodhicitta actually has two different aspects to it. It has what’s called wishing or praying bodhicitta, and then engaging bodhicitta. The first one is, this wishing or praying, aspirational bodhicitta, is this idea, I really wish all sentient beings be free from suffering, and I’m going to become a Buddha in order to bring this about. So it’s this a wish or this aspiration. That’s the first type, the first aspect of bodhicitta. And this aspirational bodhicitta actually has three different types as well.
There are three different types of aspirations that a bodhicitta may have for themselves and for sentient beings. Now the first type of aspirational bodhicitta, is what’s called aspirational bodhicitta, which is like a king, alright? Now this is the idea that a being will work towards Buddhahood and establish themselves in Buddhahood as Buddha, so they can then create the situations for others to become a Buddha. So this is said to be like a king who takes the lead role and then helps others to develop their potential. That’s the first type of aspiration towards Buddhahood that one can have.
The next type of aspiration towards Buddhahood is called the aspiration which is like a shepherd. Now a shepherd makes sure that all of their flock are safe before they worry about their own safety. So this aspiration follows the idea that a bodhisattva will work to empty Samsāra before they themselves become a Buddha. So, the same way as a shepherd will make sure all the sheep are safe before they worry about their own safety. That’s the second type of aspiration.
The third type of aspiration is based on the idea that because all sentient beings and we ourselves are both suffering and want happiness, that we’re all going to do it together. It’s called the bodhicitta that is like friends or like companions. bodhicitta that work this way work on the premise that us and other beings will work together towards Buddhahood and achieve Buddhahood at the same time. Right, now that was the finish of the sevenfold cause and effect instructions on the development of bodhicitta. There is another instruction on how to develop bodhicitta which is called the exchange of self and others.
Now, if someone is practicing this practice, the exchange of self and others, then the ideas that are included within the seven fold cause and effect instructions actually are developed along with the idea of exchanging self and others. The reason for this is the whole premise of the exchange of self and others is that we stop focusing on our own self-cherishing and we start focusing on cherishing others. We switch it around. At the moment, have this tendency to cherish ourselves and through this practice we swap around so we’re cherishing others and we are not so much worried about ourselves. At the moment we’re not so much worried about others and we cherish ourselves.
Through this practice, the ideas that are put forward in the cause and effect instructions actually come about, but by practicing the sevenfold cause and effect instructions, don’t necessarily get completely rid of our self-cherishing as we do with this if we practice the exchange of self and others completely. So this way it’s said that the cause and effect instructions are subsumed within the exchange of self and others, but the exchange of self and others practice and its results are not subsumed within the cause and effect practice. So, if we’re doing this idea of thinking about everyone as being our mothers and following that path, self-cherishing is definitely harmed. Self grasping is definitely harmed. We start thinking of others because we’re seeing them as being our mothers, but it’s not destroyed in the same way that it is with their exchange of self and others.
So we may stop there and take questions, and we’ll go into the exchange of self and others next week. If there’s questions. Yes. Okay, Geshe-la says that there is no bodhicitta in our mind stream. What we have instead of bodhicitta in our mind stream is the power to develop bodhicitta.
So, in the same way that a seed has the potential to grow into a tree, we have the potential to develop a bodhicitta, but the same way that a seed needs a lot of conditions and causes to turn it into a tree, we need to do a lot of work and put in a lot of effort in order to develop a bodhicitta in our mind stream. We need to create so many causes and conditions to bring it about. So, we don’t have bodhicitta in our mind stream at the moment because but but we have the potential for bodhicitta in our mind stream. Uh-huh. So, when we first start meditating on bodhicitta, we have a very subtle, not very subtle, very weak version of bodhicitta in our mind stream, right?
Or a version of it, a facsimile of it, and that develops and develops and develops, yeah, through our meditation, through our familiarization, until when it becomes spontaneous and when it becomes unfabricated, then we say that it’s true bodhicitta, right? But even after that’s developed, then as beings move through the, what are called the paths, the different levels of realization as they move towards becoming a Buddha, that bodhicitta grows stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger as well. So, up until the point where it’s true bodhicitta, it would get stronger, and then after that, it continues to become stronger. Yeah. It’s not but more powerful.
Yeah? It’s a it includes both, so you get rid of the the self-cherishing in the same way. And when you’re doing this exchange yourself and others, you have to you or you include this idea of mothers and working on all of those things and that attacks straight at your self-cherishing, yeah? But in the other one, don’t go into the exchange yourself and others, alright? So, it doesn’t switch around the idea of self-cherishing, so it ends up at the same place.
It’s just that one of them actually has both in it and the other one doesn’t, so one of them is said to be more direct, but they end up at the same place. It’s like within the exchange of self and others, have to do seeing all beings as being your mother as well, and otherwise you don’t change it around. And you’re cutting it straight away by turning it around, so you end up at the same place, but one’s supposed to be more yeah. So that you can have different degrees of intensity in bodhicitta. If you’re doing the practice of exchanging self and others, you can get to the stage where you’re willing to offer your body for all sentient beings.
And when you’re doing seven fold cause and effect instructions, you develop bodhicitta, but you may not necessarily develop the bodhicitta which is able to give the body to all sentient beings because of the self-cherishing having not been severed as much. Does that make sense? So it’s all about sacrificing the bodies. Yeah. And so you if with both of them, would develop bodhicitta, but it’s a the the power of the bodhicitta may be different.
Yep. You get rid of it by not perceiving the emptiness of self. Yeah. So that realizing that things aren’t the way that they appear, then that means that you completely get rid of self grasping and self-cherishing. You look perplexed, Rob.
What? Okay. And again, because I said you looked confused, and Geshe-la goes, he’s not confused. Yeah. That’s fine.
Okay, so I’m guessing that nobody else heard that whisper. What’s the proof for the mind being clear and knowing? Okay? He said, from experience, can’t you see that? Because every every consciousness we have, every mind that we have takes something as its object and is able to perceive that object.
So that means it’s clear, and it’s able to know that object and therefore it’s knowing. So, Geshe-la said, for example, can’t you see him clearly? And I said, but if you didn’t have to wear glasses, you would if you had to wear glasses and you didn’t have them, you wouldn’t be able to see clearly. And he said, no, but the malfunctioning eye would still have would cause you to see differently, but you would still clearly perceive what the malfunctioning eye was showing you. Yes?
How can a concept be clear and known? Can we Right. Okay. You’re talking about a concept as an object as opposed to a subject in that stage, aren’t you? Yeah.
Because it’s not. But anyway, Okay, so, a concept is a mind that takes something as an idea, as an object, right? So, if we have something like this, then the thing that they’re perceiving, they’ll still see it clear, clearly, and they’ll still know it, right? It’s just that it’s a mistaken perception because the thing that is appearing to them doesn’t exactly exist the way that they perceive it, alright? So, it’s a mistaken perception, but what they’re, the way that they’re perceiving it is still clear.
They’re still perceiving something, they’re still conceiving of something. Does that make sense? Okay. Buddhas don’t not know anything. That’s double negative.
Right? So they don’t not know anything, and they don’t have conception. They view everything unconceptually, so they don’t have to think, I’m a Buddha or maybe I’m not, maybe it’s arrogance, right? Because for starters, there’s no arrogance in the mind of a Buddha, alright? There’s no afflictive emotions in the mind of the Buddha, and it hasn’t been for a long time.
So, then, if they have to think I’m a Buddha, they’re not a Buddha. Okay? If there’s concept of being a Buddha, they’re not a Buddha. It’s a non conceptual understanding, a direct perception, so everything that they experience is a direct perception. But not everyone who says they’re a Buddha is a Buddha, and not everyone who we don’t think is a Buddha isn’t a Buddha.
Yes. But if someone else tells you they’re a Buddha, ask for proof. Because Geshe-la was saying they should have some lump on their head and stuff. Yes. Yes.
Okay. So everything that everything that we do that’s a positive action actually becomes, if we dedicate it towards developing bodhicitta and becoming a Buddha, becomes our cause for developing bodhicitta, but it’s not a specific method for developing bodhicitta. Within texts, these two are the main ones that described as a method specifically for the development of bodhicitta, although anything we do, including refuge and developing compassion, any of these things can be a cause for developing bodhicitta. So anything that we do before developing these ideas that are based on these two different types of trainings becomes a cause for us to actually do those training and develop bodhicitta, but in terms of methods, these are the two ones that are explained. Okay.
So the Buddha described many different ways to develop understanding, to develop immeasurables and things like that, right? But when it came to the teachings he gave on developing bodhicitta, there was only things that were based or that were around these two different ways of doing Not just Lama Tsongkhapa, but everybody. So that’s what Geshe-la said, that’s what he was saying, seven points are subsumed within the exchange of self and others. So not just Tsongkhapa, but Atisha had it in his training, I’m sorry, Lamp for the Path text and in all other traditions as well, all other lineages as well, they combine. And it’s not even in just in all the different lineages, but it’s also in the Abhisamayālamkāra.
All those are combination of both. Have you got a pen sticking up in the air, Nick? Okay. Yep. You’re has anyone else got a desperate question they wanna ask?
Because Nick’s already had a go. And I’ll get this. Mhmm. Mhmm. Also, that might just be.
Uh-huh. Now if if that’s the case, say I’m concentrating on myself. Yep. And that mind is, you know, as being inherently existent. Right?
Well, I’m just, you know Yeah. Yeah. Then that mind is a mind. It’s ignorance. Mhmm.
Right? And so Coming from the point of view of ignorance? Yep. Yeah. So is that mind clear and knowing?
And if it is Yeah. Does that mean that because it’s clear at night, it can be? Removed? Okay. Can I suggest a preliminary question so we don’t get completely confused?
Is ignorance clear and knowing? Yeah. Well, that’s what I wanna know. Yeah. And if it is Yeah.
Is that why it can be removed? Okay. So is ignorance clear and annoying? If it is, is that why can be removed? Okay, right.
Now, the definition of ignorance, yes, is a mental factor, that is something that is focusing on the characteristic of an object held as the main object of consciousness, did you get that? Yeah, so, something’s focusing on a characteristic of the object that’s held, it’s a mental factor which is fogginess or which is stupor by its nature, it’s fogginess by its nature, yeah, so, it’s a miscomprehension of objects, so it comes along with anything we perceive, we have this mental factor that focuses on the characteristic of this thing in a misperceived way, so it thinks it’s inherently existent or whatever, right? But, it comprehends the thing that it’s seeing clearly, even though it’s not there, right? It comprehends that fog clearly, and it knows that fog clearly, even though it’s a mistaken mind. No, ignorance knows inherent existence, yeah, even though it’s a mistaken mind.
Right, now, so the nature of it is still clear and knowing because it clearly perceives inherent existence, yeah, even though it’s mistaken, and it knows inherent existence even though it’s mistaken. The reason we can get rid of that is because it’s not, it isn’t inherently existent, and it’s mistaken, so by developing wisdom, we’re able to see through that, and we’re able to get rid of that fog, because it’s misperceiving things, it’s a fog, it fogs the way we perceive things, so through developing wisdom we’re able to get rid of the fog that makes us misperceive things. So, I just ask, actually, because to try because I thought this might help. There there is this idea that clear and knowing necessarily are good qualities, and they’re not. They’re neutral.
Yeah? So, it just, he said, yeah, it’s not necessarily a good quality, it just means that they have the ability to comprehend something, right? They have the ability to know the thing they’re comprehending. The thing they may comprehend can be completely wrong, but still has this ability perceive, not just see, to perceive or conceive, and then to know what it is conceived. Saying, what’s their question?
Yep. Yeah.