Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The tight defensive surge of “I am not a thief!” — or the clutching fear when a car inches near a cliff — becomes Geshe Pema Tsering’s entry point into emptiness in this 45-minute session. He works through the third and fourth characteristics of the first noble truth: that suffering is empty of an autonomous, permanent self, and that all phenomena lack inherent existence. To prevent this insight from collapsing into nihilism, he maps the four Buddhist philosophical schools as a ladder — from the Vaibhāṣika particularists to the Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika consequentialists — each offering a progressively subtler understanding of the middle way between nihilism and eternal, substantial existence. He then turns to the second noble truth, tracing suffering’s origin to karma and afflictive emotions, and pauses to clarify that karma means action, not karmic payback. Positive, negative, and neutral karma across body, speech, and mind are introduced in outline.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 4NT 2003 08 11.mp3
UUID: 527e7aae-d5ff-42b9-be96-b36af4f5b787
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: DB The four noble truths (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2003-08-11
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.0 minutes
Words: ~3,831
Four noble truths. Okay. So we were going through the, four noble truths. We’re up to the first of these, which is the truth of suffering. And, there were four different characteristics of this first noble truth of suffering, the truth of suffering. And we’ve gone through two of those, characteristics, that being the truth of suffering is characterized by characterized by impermanence in that it’s constantly changing that suffering is constantly changing and it’s characterized by suffering or having misery as its nature alright now the third of these and the fourth of these are called empty.
It’s empty of something and it’s also selfless, which is a common term in Buddhism. So the first one, it’s empty. What it’s empty of is an inherent self so that is a self that is permanent non changing permanent non changing independent and of some of one material or one substance So there or like a soul, yeah? So that so this is the so what we’re characterizing what when there’s the characteristics is the characteristics of the experience of suffering. Hence, because beings have like what’s called five aggregates or five groups of things so a being is made up of five of an aggregate of form and feeling and emotion form feeling discrimination awareness and consciousness so it’s like our minds and our body are made up a group of things and that is what we’re saying is free of a permanent person, right?
Or a thing or a soul and is free of even a subtle existent, which is the last characteristic, selflessness. Now, it may seem a bit complicated, but basically, the emptiness refers to the lack of the grosser form of a self and the selflessness characteristic refers to the more subtle form of a self. Okay, so if we go through it slower then, then the third one being characteristic of emptiness with that is being empty of a autonomous or independent permanent and substantial self okay so it’s empty of these three things now the first one of these autonomous or independence means that a being is not autonomous in their actions because whatever they do whatever they’re going to experience comes about because of, karma and delusions that they have have created in their previous existence or in a previous moment and they have to experience the results of so we may think that we have independence and we can choose what it is we’re going to experience but in actual fact whatever it is we’re going to experience comes about because of things that we’ve done in the past. So there there has to be a a base for these things to come to to come about upon.
So so this this the, lack of something permanent something independent and so on is related to any base that we can name so we could say that any base whether it’s a cushion or a person is free of these different characteristics is free of being permanent is free of being independent is free of being a substantial nature that can abide. Now, the fourth one of these is selflessness. Now, selflessness is, in this case, referring to the selflessness that is outlined in what’s called the four thoughts or the four philosophical points, I guess, of what it means to be a Buddhist so there’s these four things the first one being that compounded phenomena are impermanent the second one being that existence is suffering that compounded phenomena cause suffering or is in the nature of suffering the third one being that all phenomena are selfless so it’s this third one that all phenomena are selfless so it’s a very difficult thing to get your head around because it’s a fine philosophical point that you need to do a lot of reasoning to come around to so this is just an outline to show some of the points in the beginning but in in order to understand this idea of selflessness or emptiness properly then, you need to do a lot of reasoning and, and use a lot of, intellect to arrive at that point.
Okay, so the way that the Buddhists set up a way to understand this concept of emptiness is through four different schools and the the higher you get up along this along the, ladder of these schools the more complicated the philosophy is the more fine the philosophy is but if you start at the bottom one then that’s not that difficult to understand And then once you understood that, then you can move on to the next one and so forth. So the first one is called the Vaibhāṣika, or the Particularist school. The second one is called the Sūtra, or the Followers of Sūtra, basically the followers of the Buddha’s teachings school. And then the third one is called the mind only school. The fourth one is called the middle way school.
So the second one, all of them actually follow the Buddha’s teachings, the second one is called the Followers of Sūtra because the Buddha taught all these different types of teachings and one lot of teachings is called Sūtra. The people who follow that school, that set of teachings are put into the second group of philosophical schools. So amongst these philosophical systems and you can also divide them into two again in the Sūtra School and the particular school are usually referred to as Hīnayāna philosophical schools and the mind only school and the middle way school are usually referred to as Mahāyāna schools or greater vehicle schools. Okay. So, again, the Mahāyāna schools are split into different schools.
So they have general, philosophical tendencies in the larger groups and then they become, more particular and more particular. So amongst the Mahāyāna schools, there is the we said the mind only schools and the middle way schools. Now the mind only or the Chitamatran schools there’s two different types of those. There’s Chitamatrans who follow scripture and Chitamatrans who follow logic. Then there’s the two different types of the middle way school or the two different types of the Mādhyamika school.
They are called the, there’s the middle way autonomous or the Mādhyamika Svatāntrika, and then there’s the middle way consequentialists or the Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika. So there’s all these different subgroups within the major groups of the different schools. According to the Tibetan school that Geshe-la comes from, and the highest of these different schools is what’s called the Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika, the Middle Way Consequentialist School. So, this is considered to be the most subtle of all the philosophical schools and the other schools are presented in a way as that you can start with the bottom school and develop your understanding until you reach the subtlest level of understanding which will accord with the Prāsaṇgika or the consequentialist school’s philosophy. Okay, So, along with this, it’s said that if you don’t understand this higher school, the most subtle of the philosophical explanations of emptiness, then there’s no way you can achieve liberation or Buddhahood.
You need to be able to understand the nature of reality in order to, be able to achieve liberation or in order to be able to achieve Buddhahood. So, if people, and if people practice, then they will come to this understanding of reality that accords with this school. So this this trying to develop this understanding that accords with this philosophical presentation of the Prāsaṇgika School or the consequential school is really difficult because basically what they say is that no phenomena exists inherently or no phenomena exists from its own side. Phenomena exists merely by us labeling them as such. So we have this idea in our head if someone says to us that nothing exists from their side, nothing exists inherently, there’s nothing substantial in things that makes them exist, that we have this idea that our mind works as such that we will then think, well, nothing exists at all.
There’s and be completely nihilistic. I think that nothing matters. That’s the way that our mind will work. Hence, the the different philosophical schools have put forward an idea of what’s called the middle way. And each of these different schools, whether it’s the, the particulars, the sūtra school, the mind only school, or the middle way school, each presents their own idea of what the middle way is between the two extremes of nihilism and, eternalism or the substantial existence of things.
So they all have their own ideas on that. So if you, on the other hand, start by studying the the lower school, the Vaibhāṣika, the Particularist school, then you get an understanding of that, and then you get a an understanding of the next school, and then the of the Sūtra school, then the mind only school, and then the, autonomous school of the middle way, philosophy. And then when you come to the consequentialist middle way schools, the presentation of emptiness, your mind won’t instantly go to this idea of complete nihilism of nothing existing and nothing mattering. Instead, you’ll have this idea of, okay, if I have understood the other schools, then I understand that what they’re saying is that things do exist, they just exist terminologically or because we place a label on a collection of something and they don’t exist inherently or they don’t exist from their own power or their own force. Okay, so we’re trying to get a rough understanding of what this, the Prāsaṇgika or the consequential school’s presentation is.
So what they’re basically saying is that no phenomena exists from its own side no phenomena exists because it has the power to make itself exist Is there a hat anywhere? This guy’s lost his hat. They they took it out of here, It’s at the back probably. Yeah. Okay.
Now you’re alright. I’ve gotta remember where it was. Okay. So we have to try and understand that things don’t exist, inherently the way that we think they do. Alright?
And the way that so the way that we can kinda try and process that without going through all the other schools first is to try and get this idea of, okay, if I exist, if I exist inherently or if I exist independently or by my own power, where do I exist? Am I my body? Am I my mind? And if we look through then, it’s we walk around saying this is Geshe-la you say, Geshe I’m Geshe-la, and that’s Ruth and your individual people. And so and then we label these people as such, and we label ourselves as something.
But if I was had to define what I am, what would it be? Would it be our thoughts? Would it we be our intelligence? Would we be our bodies? Would we be, any part of us?
Would we be our feelings? What would it be that we could define as us? And in fact, if we keep looking, we don’t find us. So this thing that keeps grabbing at us, the the thing that gets us is this grasp at our sense of self. We have a very tight grasp at what it is to be us.
So, for example, if someone says to you, You’re a thief. We go, I am not. And then, we have that feeling of, like, I very strongly comes up at us. I didn’t steal anything. I didn’t do it.
And that’s this sense of self grasping. This is us grasping at something that doesn’t actually exist as if it does. Actually, this feeling of grasping in our sense of self or holding our sense of self very tightly doesn’t come to the surface very often it’s not something that we appreciate all the time or that we can observe all the time we don’t usually have this tight grasping at ourselves very often but if someone accuses us of something or we find ourselves going along next to a cliff and the wind’s blowing and we’re in a car on a cliff and the wind’s blowing and we look down and think, oh, I could fall, then we can definitely feel this, yes, grasping itself like, I something could happen to me, or, You just called me a thief. That sense of tightness, of grasping at ourselves, is as if we inherently exist as some autonomous thing is self grasping. So so if we look at it then, if we think, okay, what is it that is me that I’m so afraid of being called a thief?
Or what is it of me that I’m afraid of falling off the cliff? Is it my body? Am I just my body? And if we look all the all through our body and all the different bits of flesh on us, then we can say, hey, that’s not me. That’s not what makes up me.
I’m not inherently my body. Then we can start looking at our mind. Are we our mind? Is something, is some thought we have, does that define us as us? Or is it me in a moment in time?
Am I this moment or another moment? So we have to go through all these things and then we have to find, okay, what is it that’s me? What is it that is is the inherent part of me? And it’s we try and look, but we can’t find it. So we think that we don’t then we have to come to the idea that we don’t, exist because there’s nothing to substantiate that makes us us because we can’t put our point our finger on something and say, okay, it’s that that’s us or that it’s that that’s me.
So we have this idea that we don’t exist if we follow that reasoning. But then as soon as we’ve had this idea that we don’t exist exist, there comes this feeling of, but what about me? I exist. I don’t wanna fall off the cliff. I don’t wanna, I don’t want to don’t wanna be called a thief.
This this feeling of me comes up again. And so we think, okay. There there must be something there that’s me because I have this feeling of of feeling of me. I have this grasping at me. So that is the, like, the the labeled eye.
That’s the thing that we call ourselves eye, but we don’t always feel it. We don’t always see it. So then we get this idea there. Right? Then I must exist from me labeling me as such as as something that exists so that in that way, there’s nothing inherent or subs there’s not one substantial thing in me that doesn’t change that I could say, okay, that’s me. There’s nothing that’s established from the side of me that’s inherently existent that I could go, okay, that’s me. So it must come from me labeling. Am I from me labeling myself as being it must be that I am a merely labeled I as opposed to an inherently existent I. Now once you’ve seen that as being this standard for ourselves, then we can apply it to all phenomenon.
We can say that there’s nothing inherent in any phenomenon that makes that phenomenon that phenomenon. Alright? There’s nothing inherent in that phenomenon that makes it that phenomenon, but it is a is labeled as such. This one. So this understanding that things are only they don’t exist from their side.
They’re only labeled as being an existence. So there’s there’s only a labeling process and the mind’s labeling something as something is the only way that it exists as a very, very difficult thing to understand and and an incredibly difficult thing to, to realize directly or to see directly. To see that as being the way things are is incredibly difficult thing. So hence all these different schools, these different approaches to things in this systematic manner that you start with one and work through to develop this subtler understanding and all you have to keep analyzing and doing analytical meditation over and over again based on all the different schools to try and get to that final understanding. So this selflessness is incredibly difficult to understand.
It’s very diff and even more difficult to realize. So if something has all four of these characteristics, if it is impermanent, if its nature is misery, if it is empty of being an independent, substantially existent, permanent thing and if it is empty of being inherently existent, if it has all these characteristics, then we say that it is the truth of suffering, that that phenomenon is the truth of suffering. So in this way then we can understand that all beings who are in saṃsāra are in the nature of the truth of suffering. All phenomena experienced by beings in saṃsāra the truth of suffering, is an example of the truth of suffering. All beings, all beings’ feelings when they’re in saṃsāra, all beings that are born are born into the truth of suffering, in that they have to die and so forth.
So, any experience by any being that isn’t a an arhat or a Buddha, an arhat, someone who has completely destroyed all their afflictive emotions or negative thoughts, any being who isn’t one of them experiences nothing but the truth of suffering. So it it it is pervasive in everything that we experience. Means that we’re all experiencing suffering everything that we own everything that we experience in a tactile or as a smell or as a sight any of those things is an experience of suffering in terms of one of the three different types of suffering or unsatisfactoriness. So we are constantly experiencing these kind of things. If we’re born, we’re a being who’s under the sway of saṃsāra, if we’re being circling in saṃsāra, we’re always going to experience these different types of suffering.
So that brings to mind the question where does suffering come from and for the answer to that and how do we stop it? So the answer to that is in the next truth, the truth of the origin of suffering. So it’s said that suffering comes from these two different things, karma and klesha or cause and effect and afflictive emotions. So, if we want to know how it works, there’s these two aspects to the origin of suffering, or there’s these two things that act a cause for suffering they being the, afflictive emotions and, karma or cause and effect now amongst these then afflictive emotions is the the main cause and the main cause, the main type of afflictive emotion that leads us to create karma or negative karma is the wrong view of not seeing the emptiness of all phenomena. So because of that, then we have negative emotions and because of our negative emotions, we create negative karma and because we have negative karma or create a negative cause, we have to experience a negative result, which is the truth of suffering.
When we talk about karma or cause and effect, there’s many different categories, there’s many different divisions of karma, there’s many different ways to explain karma. One of the most common ones is to divide karma into, positive or virtuous karma, non-virtuous or negative karma, and neutral karma, or karma not described in scripture. We can also divide karma into karma of mind, karma of body, and karma of speech. Okay. So, okay.
I have to just put in a little translator’s note. I just told Geshe-la was gonna do it. Usually, when we talk about karma in the west, we keep thinking of this idea of something coming back at us. Right? This idea of we’re getting results or something, but in actual fact, the word karma means action.
So it’s not the coming it’s not results. It’s actual action. So just so if I can use it in that way, that’d be helpful because that’s the way Geshe-la is using it. Otherwise, people get confused. Alright.
Now and so when we talk about karma, we’re talking about action. So we said that there’s these three different divisions, and there’s the karma of mind, karma of speech, and karma of body. Now, karma of body is anything that we do that’s a physical action. That means we’re doing something that if it’s positive or negative will have a result. Any karma of speech is anything we say.
It will have a negative or positive result depending on what we say. And any karma of mind is anything that we think which will have a positive or negative result or positive, negative, or neutral result. So how we define whether something is a positive or negative action, so that is whether it’s positive or negative karma or not, depends on whether that action is going to be a benefit or is going to harm ourselves and other sentient beings. That’s how if we decide whether it’s a positive or negative action. So if we have if we do something with our body that’s going to harm someone, if we think harmful thoughts or if we say harmful things, then that’s negative karma.
If we do something positive, if physically, if we think something positive and we say something positive, then that’s positive Unfortunately most of the things that we do tend to be negative actions but there are is both these negative and positive actions so for example now first of all with speech in terms of positive speech if we say something nice about someone and that makes there is is is helpful to them then that’s a positive thing if we say something negative about something someone that’s gonna hurt them in some way, then that’s considered a negative action. So if we go around calling people names, we call them a thief, a liar, and there’s no reason for it. If this it’s not to benefit them, then that’s a negative action. No. Okay.
So the other thing is if we say something that’s neither negative or positive, it just is it’s just any old thing, then that’s something that will have an is a is a neutral action. Similarly with our thoughts, if we have if we have a thought wishing to harm someone or a desirous thought of some kind or an attached thought, then that’s a negative thing. If we have a thought that’s seeking to be of benefit, seeking to help, then that’s a positive thought. And if we have a thought thought that isn’t particularly positive and isn’t particularly negative, then that’s our what’s called a neutral thought.